I 


c*-- 


REESE    LIBRARY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

Received. \,>7[QjCX^       ,SS  l^ 

Accesstom  No.>^.A./<t^..      Shelf  A'o 


<e¥- 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/argumentforperpeOOphelrich 


AN   ARGUMENT 


PERPETUITY  0FJ:HE  SABBATH. 


BY    REV.   A.    A.   PHELPS. 


BOSTON: 
PUBLISHED   BY   D.   S.  KING, 

32  Washington  Street. 

1841. 


Fr 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1841, 

By  D.  S.  King, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  Massachusetts. 


^  S/^ 


STEREOTYPED  AT  THE 
BOSTON  TYPE  AND  STEREOTYPE  FOUNDRY. 


INTRODUCTION. 


The  following  Argument  in  defence  of  the 
Sabbath  was  called  forth  by  the  discussions  of 
the  late  **  Church,  Ministry,  and  Sabbath  Conven- 
tion,'' so  termed,  in  this  city.  A  wish  has  been 
repeatedly  expressed  that  it  should  be  written  out 
for  publication.  This  has  been  done  —  but  amid 
a  pressure  of  other  duties  which  has  subjected 
the  author  to  frequent  interruptions,  much  conse- 
quent delay,  and  some  serious  disadvantages  in 
its  accomplishment.  In  writing  it  out,  some 
trains  of  thought  have  been  introduced  which 
were  not  presented  in  the  Convention,  and  some, 
which  were  then  merely  hinted  at,  have  been 
carried  out.  The  Argument  differs  from  the 
ordinary  discussions  of  the  subject,  in  that  its 
strength  is  mainly  expended  on  two  points,  which, 
in  the  author's  judgment,  are  usually  despatched 


4  INTRODUCTION. 

too  summarily,  and  therefore  not  satisfactorily,  but 
which,  after  all,  are  the  strong  points  of  the  case 
on  the  part  of  our  opponents.  Those  points  are, 
first,  their  argument  to  prove  that  the  Sabbath 
was  originally  instituted  in  the  wilderness ;  and, 
second,  our  argument  to  prove  a  divine  warrant 
for  the  change  of  the  day.  To  make  the  truth 
on  these  points  clear,  has  been  a  leading  design 
in  the  ensuing  discussion.  The  Argument,  such 
as  it  iB,  is  now  given  to  the  public,  in  the  hope 
that  it  may  help  to  satisfy  the  inquiring,  to  relieve 
the  doubting,  to  decide  the  wavering,  to  confirm 
the  weak,  and  to  promote  in  all  a  more  intelligent 
and  better  observance  of  the  Lord's  Day. 

THE    AUTHOR. 
Boston,  Feb.  12,  1841. 


INDEX. 


THE    SABBATH    AS    AN    INSTITUTION. 

CHAP.    I. 
Preliminary  Remarks, 7 

CHAP.   II. 
Explanation  op  Terms, 16 

CHAP.  III. 
The  Sabbath  at  Creation, 19 

CHAP.  IV. 
The  Sabbath  in  the  Patriarchal  Age, 31 

CHAP.  V. 
The  Sabbath  in  Egypt, 41 

CHAP.  VI. 
The  Sabbath  in  the  Wilderness, , 57 

CHAP.  VII. 
The  Sabbath  a  Sign, , 73 

CHAP.  VIII. 
The  Argument  recapitulated  and  closed,  ....  ..82 

1* 


6  INDEX. 


CHANGE  OF  THE  DAY. 

CHAP.  IX. 
Statement   of   the  Question,  and   Preliminary 
Remarks, 96 

CHAP.  X. 
Nature   op   the    Argument    for  a   Change   op 
THE   Day, 104 

CHAP.  XI. 
Christ's    Sanction    of     the    Sabbath    and    its 
Change, 107 

CHAP.  XII. 
The  Sanction  of   the  Apostles  and   the  Prim- 
itive  Church, 124 

CHAP.  xm. 

The  Argument  continued,.., 140 

CHAP.   XIV. 
The  Proof-Texts  of  Opponents, 149 

CHAP.  XV. 
The  Testimony  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  ...,159 


THE    SABBATH- 


CHAPTER  I. 

PRELIMINARY   REMARKS. 

The  Sabbath  —  This  is  the  topic  in  discussion. 
But  what  is  the  question  at  issue  in  respect  to  it? 
Till  this  is  ascertained,  we  can  m£ike  no  progress  in 
the  discussion.  I  will  attempt  to  state  it.  And  first, 
I  will  state  what  it  is  not.* 

1.  It  is  not  whether  men  ought  to  be  holy  every 
day ;  to  have  "  Holiness  to  the  Lord "  written  on  all 
they  have  and  are  ;  to  carry  their  religion  into  their 
business,  so  as  to  make  their  business  part  of  their 
religion,  and  do  all  they  do  to  the  glory  of  God,  and 
in  this  sense  keep  all  days  holy;  for  in  this,  the 
friends  and  the  opponents  of  the  Sabbath  are  agreed. 
At  all  events,  no  friends  of  the  Sabbath  deny  it. 
True,  their  opponents  sometimes  say  they  do.  Nay, 
they  even  insist,  at  times,  that  their  zeal  for  the  ob- 
servance of  one  day  in  seven,  as  holy,  is  virtually  that 
they  may  have  the  freer  license  to  sin  during  the  re- 
mainder of  the  week.    But  it  is  not  so.    Such  repre- 

*  The  eirgximents  noticed  in  this  chapter  were  all  urged  in  the 
Convention. 


8  THE    SABBATH. 

sentations  are  injurious  and  false.  What  friend  of 
the  Sabbath,  if  a  minister,  does  not  preach  that  men 
ought  to  be  holy  every  day  and  every  where,  as  well 
as  on  the  Sabbath  and  in  the  sanctuar}'^  ?  And  when 
he  urges  the  observance  of  one  day  in  seven  as  a 
Sabbath,  who  is  there,  be  he  minister  or  layman,  that 
does  not  do  it,  in  order  that,  by  carrying  its  hallowing 
instructions  and  influences  with  them  into  the  or- 
dinary avocations  of  life,  men  may  be  led  to  serve 
God  in  them  as  well  as  in  their  religious  duties,  and 
so  be  made  the  more  holy,  rather  than  the  less  so, 
during  the  other  six  days  of  the  week  ?  And  who, 
that  knows  any  thing  of  a  real  observance  of  the  Sab- 
bath, does  not  know  by  experience,  that  such  are  its 
actual  tendency  and  effect  ?  Or  if,  in  any  case,  the 
tendency  and  effect  of  its  observance  seem  otherwise, 
and  men  do  cast  its  restraints  behind  them,  and  take 
occasion  from  it  to  sin  the  more  the  moment  they 
enter  on  the  week,  who  are  they  that  do  it  ?  The 
men  that  honestly  advocate  and  keep  the  Sabbath,  or 
those  only  that  play  the  hypocrite  in  regard  to  it  ?  The 
men  to  whom  the  Sabbath  is  a  delight,  and  the  holy 
of  the  Lord  honorable,  or  those  to  whom  it  is  a  yoke, 
and  a  "  burden,"  and  a  curse,  and  who  in  their  hearts 
wish  there  were  none  ?  The  latter,  plainly.  Be  this, 
however,  as  it  may,  the  question  at  issue  between  the 
friends  and  opponents  of  the  Sabbath  is  not  whether 
men  ought  to  serve  God  always  and  every  where, 
and  so  keep  all  days  holy,  —  for  this  the  friends  of  the 
Sabbath  most  fully  believe  and  teach,  —  but  whether 
keeping  all  days  holy,  forbids  the  setting  apart  of 
one  day  in  seven  as  a  Sabbath  ;  i.  e.  as  a  day  of  rest 
from  the  ordinary  avocations  of  life,  and  of  special  de- 


PRELIMINARY    REMARKS.  9 

votion  to  the  duties  of  religion.  And  to  pretend  this, 
is  to  say  that  setting  apart  particular  times  to  particu- 
lar duties,  so  that  those  duties  may  be  the  more  or- 
derly and  profitably  dischai^ged,  is  inconsistent  with 
keeping  all  time  holy ;  whereas,  in  point  of  fact,  it 
may  be,  and  is,  only  a  more  effectual,  as  well  as  com- 
mon sense  arrangement  for  this  very  end. 

2.  The  question  touching  the  Sabbath  is  not 
whether  Christ  taught  a  higher  and  purer  morality 
than  Moses  and  the  prophets.  That  he  did,  I  know,  is 
claimed.  It  is  said  in  terms,  that  "  the  standard  of 
morality  under  the  gospel  dispensation  is  infinitely 
higher  than  it  was  under  the  old ; "  and  the  inference 
is,  that  the  Sabbath  is  therefore  now  set  aside.  But 
the  fact  asserted  admits  of  question  — much  more  the 
inference.  When  one  (Matt.  xxii.  36 — 40)  came  to 
Christ  with  the  inquiry,  "  Master,  which  is  the  great 
commandment  of  the  law,"  his  answer  was,  "  Thou 
shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and 
with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  mind.  This  is  the 
first  and  great  commandment.  And  the  second  is  like 
unto  it  —  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself." 
And  then  he  added,  '-On  these  two  commandments 
hang  all  the  law  and  the  prophets  "  —  a  plain  declara- 
tion, that  these  two  great  requirements  of  supreme 
love  to  God  and  impartial  love  to  man,  covering,  as 
they  do,  the  whole  field  of  obligation  and  duty,  are 
not  the  revelation  of  a  new  and  higher  standard,  un- 
knovm  to  Moses  and  the  prophets,  but  a  summary 
only  of  what  they  themselves  had  taught.  Indeed, 
so  true  is  this,  that,  on  another  occasion,  (Matt.  vii. 
12,)  when  Christ  gave  his  disciples  that  golden  rule, 
which  in  its  wide  sweep  comprehends  all  obligation 


10  THE    SABBATH. 

and  duty,  —  "Therefore  all  thiogs  whatsoever  ye 
would  that  men  should  do  to  you,  do  ye  even  so  to 
them,"  —  so  far  from  telling  them  that  herein  he  gave 
them  a  higher  and  purer  standard  of  morality  than 
that  of  Moses  and  the  prophets,  he  adds  emphatically, 
"jPor  this  IS  the  law  and  the  prophets  ^^  —  nothing  older 
and  nothing  newer,  nothing  more  and  nothing  less, 
but  the  same  identical  thing  itself.  If  Christ's  tes- 
timony, then,  is  to  be  received,  he  did  not  reveal  nor 
enjoin  a  higher  or  a  purer  morality  than  did  Moses 
and  the  prophets.  Of  course  the  Sabbath  is  not  to 
be  set  aside  on  this  ground. 

But  admit,  if  you  will,  that  he  did  reveal  a  new  and 
higher  morality,  still  the  inference  of  no  Sabbath  does 
not  follow ;  for  the  question  is,  not  whether  Christ 
taught  a  higher  and  purer  morality  than  Moses  and 
the  prophets,  but  did  he  teach  one  so  high  and  so 
pure  as  to  set  aside  the  Sabbath?  Admit  it  to  be 
as  elevated  and  pure  as  purity  itself,  does  it  therefore 
follow  that  to  set  apart  one  day  in  seven  as  a  Sab- 
bath, —  i.  e.  as  a  day  of  rest  from  the  ordinary  avoca- 
tions of  life,  and  of  special  devotion  to  the  duties  of 
religion,  —  is  no  longer  obligatory  or  proper  ?  To  say 
so,  brings  us  to  the  old  absurdity  again,  viz.  that  to 
appropriate  particular  times  to  particular  duties,  for 
the  sake  of  their  more  orderly  and  profitable  dis- 
charge, is  inconsistent  with  keeping  all  time  holy, 
or,  what  is  the  same,  with  the  purity  of  the  gospel ; 
or  that  it  is  at  best  a  needless  and  profitless  arrange- 
ment. And  this  is  an  absurdity  so  glaring  that  anti- 
Sabbath  men  themselves  do  not,  and  cannot,  practise 
on  it,  —  except  in  their  religion.  For  they,  as  well 
as  others,  have  their  general  arrangement  of  one  time 


PRELIMINARY    REMARKS.  tJ 

for  the  duties  of  the  family,  another  for  the  duties  of 
the  farm,  or  the  workshop,  or  the  printing-office,  and 
so  on  through  the  whole  circle  of  regularly-returning 
duties.  And  can  it  be,  that  it  is  in  religion  only,  that 
the  appropriation  of  a  particular  time  to  particular 
duties  is  a  needless  and  profitless  arrangement,  in- 
consistent alike  with  keeping  all  time  holy,  and  with 
the  elevated  purity  of  the  gospel  —  nay,  a  "  burden  " 
and  a  "  yoke,"  from  which  Christ  came  to  deliver  us  ? 
By  no  means.  Elevated  and  pure  as  is  the  morality 
Christ  taught,  it  does  not  follow  that  it  is  so  pure  as 
to  annihilate  or  set  aside  the  observance  of  one  day 
m  seven  as  a  Sabbath,  or  day  of  holy  rest.  That  re- 
mains to  be  proved,  not  taken  for  granted. 

3.  The  question  touching  the  Sabbath  is  not 
whether  the  law,  or  Sinai  covenant,  is  done  away 
in  Christ,  or  in  the  gospel,  or  new  covenant ;  for  in 
this  the  friends  and  opponents  of  the  Sabbath  are 
agreed.  But  it  is,  in  what  sense  is  the  one  done 
away  by  the  other?  Is  it  so  done  away  as  to  set 
aside  the  Sabbath?  That  is  the  question.  (1.)  Is  it 
done  away  as  a  means  of  justification?  Agreed. 
"  Therefore  by  the  deeds  of  the  law  there  shall  no 
flesh  be  justified  in  his  sight,"  (Rom.  iii.  20.)  That, 
however,  does  not  touch  the  question  of  the  ob- 
servance of  the  Sabbath  as  a  duty.  The  law,  though 
not  binding  as  a  rule  of  justification,  may  be  as  a 
rule  of  duty,  so  that  it  may  still  be  as  much  my  duty 
to  keep  the  Sabbath  as  it  is  to  worship  God.  (2.)  Is 
it,  then,  done  away  in  Christ  as  a  rule  of  duty  ?  It  is  so 
asserted ;  but  what  saith  the  apostle  ?  —  "Do  we,  then, 
make  void  the  law"  (as  a  rule  of  duty)  "through 
fidth?"  (as  the  rule  of  justification.)  (v.  28.)    "God 


12  THE    SABBATH. 

forbid.  Yea,  we  ESTABLISH  the  law."  Such  ig: 
Paul's  opinion.  And  why,  indeed,  should  he  have 
any  other  ?  What  room  is  there  for  pardon  or  justi- 
fication where  there  is  no  sin  to  be  pardoned  ?  And 
what  sin  can  there  be  where  there  is  no  law,  or  ex- 
isting obligation  to  be  violated?  And  what  law  is 
there  when  the  law  is  done  away  ? 

But  admit  that  the  law,  as  a  rule  of  duty,  is  done 
away ;  are  we,  then,  no  longer  bound  to  love  God  or 
man,  to  abstain  from  idolatry,  blasphemy,  false  wit- 
ness, theft,  adultery,  murder,  and  the  like  ?  Are  we 
absolved  fi'om  obligation  in  respect  to  these  matters 
as  well  as  that  of  the  Sabbath  ?  This  is  not  pre- 
tended. But  it  is  said  that  obligation,  in  these  cases,  is 
unchanging,  growing  out  of  the  very  nature,  necessi- 
ties, and  relations  of  man,  and  that,  therefore,  we  are, 
in  respect  to  them,  "  under  law  to  Christ."  Be  it  so. 
And  how  does  it  appear  that  we  are  not  equally 
«  under  law  to  Christ "  to  keep  the  Sabbath  ?  This, 
at  least,  is  the  question  j  and  is  a  thing  to  be  proved^ 
not  taken  for  granted. 

4.  The  question  at  issue  is  not  whether  the  rites 
and  ceremonies  of  the  old  economy  were  a  shadow 
of  good  things  to  come,  and  are  all  fulfilled  in  Christ^ 
For  in  this  we  are  all  agreed.  But  it  is  w^hether  the 
Sabbath,  any  more  than  the  marriage  institution,  or 
the  command  to  honor  parents,  or  every  other  com- 
mand of  the  decalogue,  was  a  part  of  that  shadow^ 
and  therefore  done  away  in  Christ,  the  substance. 
All  agree  that  the  shadow  is  done  away ;  but  was  the 
Sabbath  a  part  of  it  ?  That  is  the  question,  and  is^ 
a  matter  to  be  proved,  not  assumed. 

5.  The  question  at  issue  is  not    whether  Christ 


PRELIMINARY    REMARKS. 


OF  THE     '^  ^y 


came  to  deliver  us  from  the  yoke  and  burden  of  old 
rites  and  ceremonies ;  for  this,  too,  all  admit.  But  it 
is,  whether  the  Sabbath,  any  more  than  the  marriage 
institution,  or  the  command  to  worship  and  serve 
God,  w^as  a  part  of  that  burden  and  yoke  ?  True,  it 
is  so  claimed.  The  Sabbath,  so  far  from  being  re- 
garded as  a  "delight,"  is  set  down  by  some  as  a 
burden,  from  whose  intolerable  pressure  it  was  one 
great  object  of  Christ  to  deliver  us.  All  this,  how- 
ever, is  but  begging  the  question.  W^hat  proof  is 
there  that  the  Sabbath  was  a  part  of  that  burden  ? 
To  assume  it,  and  then  infer,  that  because  the  burden 
is  done  away,  the  Sabbath  is,  is  assumption,  and  noth- 
ing more.  With  the  same  propriety  you  may  assume 
that  marriage  was  a  part  of  the  burden,  and  then 
gravely  infer,  that,  the  burden  being  done  away,  mar- 
riage is  done  away  too.  The  logic  —  if  logic  it  can  be 
called  —  is  as  good  in  one  case  as  in  the  other.  Indeed, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  some  who  have  applied  it  to  the 
Sabbath  first,  have  afterwards  applied  it  to  the  mar- 
riage institution,  and  insisted,  that  "  it  is  only  in  the 
view  of  the  mind,  and  after  the  fashion  of  the  world, 
that  a  person  has  any  more  right  over  a  woman,  after 
a  certain  ceremony  is  performed,  than  before  "  —  that 
"  God  is  about  to  put  an  end  to  all  such  mock,  sham, 
and  fictitious  rights" — that  the  parties  "ought  to  be 
left  free  to  separate  from  each  other;  else  what  is 
the  use  to  talk  about  people's  having  rights,  seeing 
they  are  not  allowed  to  exercise  any  in  a  matter  the 
most  important  to  their  peace  and  welfare  of  any 
other,  but  are  bond  slaves  ?  "  *  —  that  "  the  righteous- 

"^  Battle  Axe,  p.  19. 
2 


14  THE    SABBATH. 

ness  of  the  saints  will  cause  those  that  possess  it  for 
the  first  time  to  love  their  neighbor  as  themselves, 
and  act  in  accordance  with  such  love  in  all  things," 
and  that,  so  acting,  "  what  one  has  is  to  another  as 
his  own.  All  things  are  common  in  the  fullest  sense 
of  the  words  —  wives  and  every  thing  else.  No  part 
of  the  price  is  kept  back.  None  are  suffered  to  want 
while  another  abounds."  *  —  And  that  "  when  the  will 
of  God  is  done  on  earth,  as  it  is  in  heaven,  there  ivill 
he  no  marriage.  The  marriage  supper  of  the  Lamb 
is  a  feast,  at  which  every  dish  is  free  to  every  guest^^  f 

Such  sentiments  shock  us.  They  shock,  too,  it  is 
believed,  the  great  body  of  those  who  reject  the  Sab- 
bath. Indeed,  so  manifestly  do  they  "  turn  the  grace 
of  God  into  lasciviousness,"  that  we  can  scarcely 
persuade  ourselves  that  they  are  seriously  entertained 
by  any.  And  yet  it  is  notorious  that  they  are.  These, 
and  worse  than  these,  are  the  sentiments  of  the  spir- 
itual or  no-marriage  Perfectionists.  It  is  equally  no- 
torious that  the  same  processes  of  assumption  and 
inference,  and  the  same  reasonings  about  burdens, 
and  shadows,  and  entering  into  rest  and  the  liberty 
of  Christ,  &c.  &c.,  which  lead  the  one  to  the  re- 
jection of  the  Sabbath,  the  church,  and  the  ministry, 
lead  the  other,  and  logically  too,  to  the  rejection  of 
Sabbath,  ordinances,  chm'ch,  ministry,  marriage,  Bible 
and  all.  Starting  at  the  same  point,  and  pursuing  the 
same  processe's  of  reasoning,  the  one  stop  with  the 
rejection  of  the  Sabbath,  the  ministry,  and  the  church, 
the  others  rush  headlong,  yet  logically,  to  results  that, 
under  the  garb  of  Christianity,  strip  Christianity  of 
her  essential  elements,  and  make  Christ  little  else 

*  Battle  Axe;  p.  13.  t  Ibid.  p.  10. 


PRELIMINARY    REMARKS.  15 

than  a  minister  of  sin.  I  repeat  it,  then,  the  question 
at  issue  in  respect  to  the  Sabbath,  is  not,  whether  the 
burden  of  old  rites  and  ceremonies  is  done  away,  but 
is  the  Sabbath  a  part  of  it?  And  this  is  a  thing  to 
be  proved,  not  assumed. 

6.  The  question  is  not  whether  it  is  our  privilege 
and  duty  to  have  peace  and  joy  in  believing ;  to  enter 
into  rest;  to  become  freemen  in  Christ  Jesus;  to 
stand  fast  in  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  maketh  free, 
and  be  not  entangled  again  in  the  yoke  of  bondage, 
&c.  &c. ;  for  all  this  the  friends  of  the  Sabbath 
most  fully  believe  and  teach.  But  the  question  is, 
whether  this  peace,  and  joy,  and  rest,  and  liberty,  are 
the  peace,  and  joy,  and  rest,  and  liberty,  of  doing 
without  a  Sabbath.     That  is  the  question. 

7.  And  finall}'^,  the  question  is  not  whether  the 
letter  [2  Cor.  iii.  6 — 11)  killeth  while  the  spirit  giveth 
life;  nor  whether  the  Jewish  dispensation  is  done 
away  by  the  Christian ;  nor  whether  the  Christian  is 
so  much  more  glorious  than  the  other  as  to  eclipse 
and  throw  it  into  the  shade ;  for  this,  too,  is  clearly 
taught  in  the  passage  quoted  and  fully  believed  by 
the  friends  of  the  Sabbath.  But  the  question  is 
whether  the  Christian  dispensation  is  so  glorious  as 
to  dispense  with  the  Sabbath.  And  this,  as  in  all  the 
other  cases,  is  a  matter  to  be  proved,  not  assumed. 
Let  it  be  well  considered,  then,  that  the  inferences  so 
confidently  drawn  to  the  non-existence  of  the  Sab- 
bath, from  the  several  premises  now  noticed,  are,  after 
all,  mere  assuinptions.  Of  course  they  are  all  to  be 
set  aside  at  the  outset,  as  having  nothing  to  do  with 
the  question  really  at  issue.  This  done,  we  may 
profitably  proceed  with  the  discussion. 


CHAPTER    II. 

EXPLANATION    OF    TERMS. 

In  the  discussion  of  every  subject,  much  depends 
on  a  correct  explanation  or  definition  of  terms.  It  is 
so  in  the  present  case.  Some  really  seem  to  suppose 
that  the  friends  of  the  Sabbath  regard  one  day  as 
intnnsically  more  holy  than  another,  and  that  when 
they  use  the  tern>s  saa'ed,  sanctified,  holy,  and  Sab^ 
bath,  they  do  it  with  such  an  understanding  of  them. 
But  is  it  so  ?  Learning,  as  they  do,  all  they  know  of 
the  Sabbath  from  the  Bible,  it  is  but  fair  to  suppose 
that  they  use  these  terms  in  the  same  sense  that  the 
Bible  does.     What,  then,  is  the  Bible  use  of  them  ? 

1.  Sanctified.  This,  in  the  Mosaic  use  of  it,  de- 
notes, among  other  things,  "  set  apart  specially  to  sa- 
cred or  religious  purposes."  Thus  (Lev.  viii.  10 — 12) 
we  are  told  that  Moses  took  the  anointing  oil,  and 
anointed  the  tabernacle,  and  all  that  was  therein,  and 
*^ sanctified ^^  them;  and  sprinkled  the  altar  and  all  his 
vessels,  to  "  sanctify "  them  —  not  that  the  materials 
of  which  these  things  were  made  were  intrinsically 
more  holy  than  the  same  materials  wrought  into  other 
vessels ;  nor  that  the  vessels  themselves  were  made 
intrinsically  more  holy  by  this  act  of  consecration ; 
but  only  that  they  were  thus  set  apart  specially  and 
exclusively  to  the  services  of  religion,  in  like  man- 
ner, also,  "he  poured  of  the  anointing  oil  upon  Aaron's 


EXPLANATION    OF   TERMS.  17 

head,  and  anointed  him,  to  sanctify  him ; "  i.  e.  to  set 
him  apart  to  the  services  of  rehgion  —  not  that  he  was 
thereby  made  intrinsically  more  holy  than  before. 
In  the  same  sense,  when  they  came  up  out  of  Egypt, 
the  Israelites  were  commanded  (Ex.  xiii.  2)  to  "  sanc- 
tify," or  (v.  12)  "  set  apart  unto  the  Lord,"  all  the  first- 
born of  man  and  beast  —  the  beasts  for  sacrifice  and 
the  men  for  the  religious  services  of  the  altar  and 
the  temple.  In  Joel  also  (i.  14 ;  ii.  15)  the  priests  are 
called  upon  to  "  sanctify  a  fast,  call  a  solemn  assem- 
bly," &c. ;  i.  e.  obviously,  to  appoint  or  set  apart  a  time 
for  that  religious  service.  And  in  the  same  sense, 
beyond  all  question,  it  is  said,  (Gen.  ii.  3,)  "God 
blessed  the  seventh  day,  and  sanctified  it ; "  i.  e.  set 
it  apart  specially  to  religious  purposes. 

2.  Holy.  This  is  used  in  the  same  sense  with  the 
term  sanctified.  Thus  the  "holy  garments"  (Ex. 
xxviii.  2)  of  Aaron  and  his  sons  are  not  garments 
intrinsically  more  holy  than  others,  but  merely  gar- 
ments made  and  set  apart  specially  for  the  religious 
services  of  the  altar  and  temple.  So,  when  it  is  said, 
(Ex.  xvi.  23,)  "To-morrow  is  the  rest  of  the  holy 
Sabbath,"  the  meaning  is,  not  that  the  morrow  is 
intrinsically  more  holy  than  any  other  day,  but  that 
it  is  the  day  set  apart  from  the  ordinary  avocations 
of  life  to  the  purposes  of  religious  rest,  improvement, 
and  worship.  Literally  translated,  the  passage  reads, 
"To-morrow  is  the  rest,  the  rest  holy  (Sabbath-gito- 
desh)  unto  the  Lord."  And  this  gives  you  its  true 
meaning,  viz.  To-morrow  is  the  rest,  the  rest  that 
is  holy ;  i.  e.  consecrated,  or  set  apart  to  the  Lord. 
So,  m  the  account  of  the  original  institution  of  the 
Sabbath,  (Gen.  ii.  3,)  the  term  which  is  translated 
2* 


fS  THE    SABBATH. 

sanctified  is  yekaddeshy  and  means,  literally,  he  caused 
it  to  be  holy ;  i.  e.  he  hallowed  or  set  it  apart  to  the 
pui'poses  of  religion. 

3.  Sabbath,  This  term,  in  view  of  what  has  just 
been  said,  is  readily  understood.  Literally,  it  means 
merely  7'est.  Applied  to  a  particular  period  of  time 
set  apart  as  holy,  as  of  a  day,  it  means  a  day  set 
apart  to  rest  from  the  ordinary  avocations  of  life,  and 
specially  devoted  to  the  duties  of  religious  instruction, 
improvement,  and  worship.  The  Sabbath,  then,  as  an 
institution,  is  a  season  of  rest,  holy  or  consecrated 
to  the  Lord.  It  consists  of  two  parts,  the  Sabbath  or 
holy  rest,  and  the  time  or  day  set  apart  for  it.  This 
distinction  is  clearly  recognized  in  the  account  of  its 
original  institution.  God  (Gen.  ii.  2)  rested  (sabba- 
tized)  on  the  seventh  day  ;  and  then  (v.  3)  he  "  sanc- 
tified," or  set  that  day  apart,  as  the  day  for  sabbati- 
zing,  "  because  that  in  it  he  had  rested,"  (sabbatized.) 
The  sabbatizing  or  holy  resting  is  therefore  one  thing; 
the  particular  day  set  apart  for  it  is  another.  The 
particular  day  may  therefore  be  changed,  as  from  the 
seventh  to  the  first  day  of  the  week,  and  yet  the  in- 
stitution itself,  as  a  season  of  holy  rest  consecrated  to 
the  services  of  religion,  remain  unchanged. 


CHAPTER    III. 

THE    SABBATH    AT    CREATION. 

The  question,  then,  or  rather  questions,  at  issue  in 
this  discussion,  are  these  —  1.  Is  the  Sabbath,  as  an 
institution,  perpetually  binding  on  men?  2.  Has  any 
particular  day  been  set  apart,  by  divine  appointment, 
for  its  observance  ?  and  if  so,  what  day  is  it? 

Is  THE  Sabbath  perpetually  binding  on  men  ? 

It  will  be  my  object  to  show  that  it  is. 

1.  Its  perpetual  obligation  is  manifest  from  its 
original  institution.  Like  marriage,  it  was  instituted 
at  creation,  and  instituted,  not  for  the  Jew  alone,  nor 
for  the  Greek,  nor  for  any  particular  age  or  nation, 
but  for  man  —  the  race;  to  live,  therefore,  like  the 
marriage  institution,  while  the  race,  in  its  present 
state  of  being,  lives ;  and  to  be  binding  in  its  obser- 
vance, while  there  is  such  a  race  to  observe  it.  This 
is  manifest  from  the  inspired  record.  According  to 
that,  the  first  period  of  creation  (Gen.  i.  1 — 5)  brought 
forth  the  shapeless  mass  of  chaos,  and  separated  the 
darkness  from  the  light,  and  gave  being  to  Day  and 
Night.  The  second  (vs.  6 — 8)  gave  the  firmament, 
and  separated  the  waters  which  were  beneath  from 
those  which  were  above  it.  The  third  (vs.  9 — 13) 
gathered  the  waters  that  were  under  the  firmament 
into  seas,  brou^ght  forth  the  earth,  clothed  it  with  the 
tender  grass,  and  the  herb,  and  tree,  and  made  it  in- 


30  THE    SABBATH 

stinct  every  where  with  vegetable  life  and  beauty. 
The  fourth  (vs.  14 — 19)  studded  the  firmament  with 
greater  and  lesser  lights,  to  divide  the  day  from  the 
night,  and  to  be  for  signs  and  for  seasons,  and  for 
days  and  years.  The  fifth  (vs.  20 — ^23)  filled  the  sea 
and  air  with  their  appropriate  inhabitants,  and  made 
them  instuict  with  animal  life  in  all  its  myriad  forms. 
The  sixth  (vs.  24 — 31)  peopled  the  earth  wdth  every 
living  creature,  each  after  his  kind;  gave  man  his 
being,  in  the  image  of  Grod,  and  male  and  female ; 
then  blessed,  and  bade  him  multiply,  and  replenish 
and  subdue  the  earth,  and  invested  him  with  do- 
minion over  bird,  and  beast,  and  fish,  and  herb,  and 
tree.  Thus  was  creation  ended.  The  great  arrange- 
ments of  day  and  night,  of  ^earth  and  seas,  of  seasons 
and  years ;  of  vegetable  and  animal  life,  pervading 
earth,  and  sea,  and  ah- ;  of  man  in  the  conjugal  rela- 
tionship, ("male  and  female  created  he  them,")  mul- 
tiplying and  replenishing  the  earth,  and  swaying  the 
sceptre  of  dominion  over  all,  —  these  arrangements 
were  all  completed.  Nor  will  it  be  pretended  that 
these  were  not,  each  and  all,  permanent  in  their  char- 
acter, and  made  originally,  as  they  are  now  continued, 
not  for  man  of  any  particular  age  or  nation,  but  for 
man  —  the  race. 

But  there  was  one  arrangement  not  completed. 
True,  creation's  work  was  done.  Existence,  in  all 
its  vai'ied  forms  of  beauty  and  of  life,  and  up  through 
all  its  myriad  ranks  to  man,  the  image  of  his  God 
and  head  of  all,  was  thrown  from  its  Creator's  hand. 
And  it  was  all  very  good.  But  how  should  this  fair 
world,  or  man  the  head  of  it,  be  kept  in  fond  re- 
membrance of  its  Author .?   how  made  to  move  in 


AT    CREATION.  21 

sweet  attraction  and  harmony  divine  around  its  great 
Original?  Man,  the  race,  needed  one  arrangement 
more — a  something,  that,  at  regular  and  oft-return- 
ing periods,  should  stop  him  in  the  busy  whirl  of 
life,  and  lift  his  thoughts  to  Him  that  gave,  and,  with- 
out ceasing,  was  to  give  to  him,  and  all  things  else, 
their  being  and  their  all.  What  should  that  arrange- 
ment be?  And  (Gen.  ii.  2,  3)  "God  rested  on  the 
seventh  day  from  all  the  work  which  he  had  made. 
And  God  blessed  the  seventh  day,  and  sanctified  it, 
because  that  in  it  he  had  rested  froni  all  his  work." 
That  gave  the  desired  arrangement.  God  rested  on 
the  seventh  day  from  his  creating  work,  and  dwelt 
in  sweet  complacency  and  holy  joy  on  all  that  he  had 
made.  It  was  all  "  very  good;^^  and  in  holy  contem- 
plation of  it,  holy  satisfaction  filled  his  mind  —  God 
felt  satisfied.  "  On  the  seventh  day  (Ex.  xxxi.  17)  he 
rested  and  was  refreshed.''^  And  because  He  rested  then 
and  was  refreshed,  he  set  that  day  apart  for  man,  that, 
at  each  returning  seventh  period,  he  and  his  might 
rest  from  their  six  days'  work,  as  God  had  done  from 
his,  and,  resting,  lift  their  thoughts  in  fond  remem- 
brance and  holy  joy  to  God,  their  Maker,  and  be, 
(Ex.  xxiii.  12,)  like  him,  "  refreshed."  The  one  was 
manifestly  the  reason  or  occasion  of  the  other.  God 
rested  and  was  refreshed  on  that  day.  Therefore  he 
blessed  and  "  sanctified,"  or  set  it  apart,  not  for  him- 
self, plainly,  but  for  man  to  rest  and  be  alike  re- 
fi-eshed.  Nor  was  it  for  one  age  or  nation  merely, 
but  for  man  in  every  age  and  every  where.  And 
being  so,  it  was  the  arrangement  needed,  arid 
fitted  to  hold  the  world  in  fond  remembrance  and 
sweet  attraction  to  its  Maker's  throne.    It  was  the 


22  THE    SABBATH 

arrangement  with  which  the  circle  of  great  and  per- 
manent arrangements  for  man  in  the  morning  of  his 
being  was  complete,  and  without  which  that  circle 
was  marvellously  incomplete.  Can  there,  then,  be 
doubt  that,  in  accordance  with  the  obvious  and  literal 
import  of  the  divine  record,  the  Sabbath  was  insti- 
tuted, by  God,  at  creation,  and  as  an  arrangement 
for  the  race,  not  for  any  particular  portion  of  it? 
Were  not  all  the  other  arrangements,  made  and  in- 
stituted at  creation,  made  and  instituted  for  the  race  ? 
Was  not  the  arrangement  of  day  and  night  for  man 
—  the  race  ?  of  earth  and  seas,  for  man  —  the  race  ? 
of  seasons  and  years,  for  man  —  the  race  ?  Of  vege- 
table and  animal  life,  pervading  earth,  air,  and  sea ; 
of  man,  in  the  conjugal  relationship,  or  social  state, 
multiplying,  and  replenishing  and  subduing  the 
earth  ;  of  man,  wielding  dominion  over  all  the  lower 
creation,  —  were  not  all  these  arrangements  made  and 
instituted  for  man  —  the  race  ?  Why,  then,  should 
the  arrangement  of  the  Sabbath  be  an  exception? 
Plainly  it  was  not.  It  was  instituted  when  they  were 
instituted,  and,  like  them,  was  designed  to  be  as 
universal  in  its  existence,  and  as  perpetual  in  its  ob- 
ligation, as  the  race  itself  Nay,  it  was  the  crowning 
arrangement  of  all.  They  looked  rather  to  the  wel- 
fai'e  of  the  natural  and  the  mortal  of  man  ;  this  to  the 
spiritual  and  immortal  of  him. 

Ohjection.  But  geology,  it  is  said,  has  proved  be- 
yond a  doubt,  that  the  days  spoken  of  in  the  histoiy 
of  creation,  were  not  such  periods  of  twenty-four  hours 
as  we  are  familiar  with,  and  which  we  now  call  days, 
but  long  and  indefinite  periods  of  time  —  periods  of  a 
thousand  years  or  more ;  and  therefore  that  it  is  ab- 


AT    CREATION. 


surd  to  speak  of  God's  resting  the  seventh  day,  in^tfee  *    -^  i  in- 
ordinary acceptation  of  the  term,  and  then  setting 
apart  that  day  as  a  period  of  similar  rest  to  man. 

Answer,  This  objection,  to  have  any  force,  must 
assume,  what  some  geologists  do  not  maintain, — 
(1.)  that  all  of  the  seven  days  hi  question  were  such 
long  and  indefinite  periods,  and  (2.)  that  the  last  three, 
whether  longer  or  shorter,  were  not  made  up  of  such 
days,  weeks,  &c.,  as  we  are  now  familiar  with.  Should 
it  be  admitted  that  the  last  three  days  (which  were 
the  days  following  the  creation  Of  the  sun  "  to  rule 
the  day  ")  were  days  of  the  ordinary  length,  the  ob- 
jection fails.  Or,  should  it  be  admitted  that  these 
last  days,  though  themselves  long  and  indefinite 
periods,  were  made  up,  as  such  periods  would  be 
now,  of  ordinary  days,  weeks,  &c.,  then  also  the  ob- 
iection  equally  fails.  For  in  both  cases,  the  day  that 
God  blessed  and  sanctified,  as  he  did  it  for  man,  and 
not  for  himself,  would  be  the  ordinary  day  with 
which  man  was,  and  was  to  be,  familiar.  Meeting 
the  objection,  then,  on  the  ground  that  it  does  and 
must  assume,  in  order  to  have  any  force,  I  remark, 

1.  Beasts  and  men  were  created  on  the  sixth  day. 
As  man  was  made  male  and  female,  it  is  but  fair  to 
suppose  that  his  creation  occupied  at  least  one  half 
the  time.  And  has  geology  proved  that  God  was 
some  five  hundred  years  or  more  making  man? 

2.  The  seventh  day  was,  of  course,  man's  first 
whole  day  upon  the  eai*th.  And  has  geology  proved 
that  man's  first  whole  day  was  a  thousand  or  more 
years  long?  and  this,  while  it  freely  admits,  in 
agreement  with  the  inspired  record,  that  each  of  his 
after  days  consisted  of  only  twenty-four  hours  ? 


^ 


24  THE    SABBATH 

3.  But  be  it  that  geology  has  proved  all  it  claims 
of  the  first  four  periods  or  days ;  has  it  proved  the 
same  of  the  three  remaining  periods?  Has  it  proved 
that,  after  God  had  made  the  lights  "  to  divide  the 
day  from  the  night,  and  to  be  for  signs  and  for  sea- 
sons, and  for  days  and  years,"  —  the  sun  "to  rule  the 
day,"  and  the  moon  "  to  rule  the  night,"  —  and  "  set 
them  in  the  firmament,"  and  bade  them  do  their 
work,  —  they  did  not  do  it  then  as  they  do  it  now? 
Has  it  proved  that  the  same  heavenly  bodies  that 
now  rule  the  days  into  periods  of  twenty-four  hours 
each,  and  the  years  into  periods  of  three  hundred 
sixty-five  days  each,  and  regulate  the  seasons  ac- 
cordingly, did  not  rule  the  days  and  years,  and  reg- 
ulate the  seasons,  in  the  same  manner,  and  in  obe- 
dience to  the  same  laws,  then  ?  Is  it  indeed  so,  that 
these  same  heavenly  bodies,  with  their  fixed  and  un- 
changing laws  of  attraction,  were  a  thousand  years  or 
more  in  doing  then  what  they  now  do  in  twenty-four 
hours?  Aud  geology  proved  it!  and,  proving  that, 
turned  astronomer,  and  proved  also  that,  far  backward 
in  the  lapse  of  time,  by  some  sudden  shift  or  process 
gradual,  the  laws  that  govern  the  entire  planetary 
system  have  all  been  changed,  and  so  changed  that 
results  which  used  to  be  the  product  of  a  millenary 
of  years  are  now  the  product  of  a  few  short  hours ! 
Nay,  verily,  geology  may  adjust  her  difficulties  with 
the  Bible  about  the  meaning  of  a  term  ;  but  can  she 
adjust  the  controversy  between  herself  and  Astron- 
omy ?  Can  she  tell  Astronomy  when,  and  where, 
and  how,  the  laws  of  the  planetary  system  were  so 
changed  ?  At  what  point  of  time,  by  what  slow  or 
sudden  shifl;  was  it,  that  these  mighty  worlds  (or  the 


AT    CREATION.  25 

earth  as  governed  by  them)  were  quickened  in  their 
flight,  and  made  to  do  the  work  of  a  thousand  years 
or  more  within  the  limits  of*  a  few  short  hours  ?  Will 
geology,  or  the  objector,  answer  this?  —  Moreover, 
4.  Does  not  the  whole  argument  from  geology 
rest  on  mere  assumption  ?  True,  the  word  "  day,"  as 
used  in  the  Mosaic  account,  will  bear  the  construction 
put  on  it  by  geology ;  but  on  one  condition  only. 
Like  every  other  word,  it  is  always  to  be  understood 
in  its  common  and  proper  acceptation,  unless  there 
be  something  in  the  connection  in  which  it  is  used, 
or  in  the  nature  of  the  subject,  to  forbid  it.  In  that 
case,  and  that  only,  it  must  be  understood  in  some 
other  sense ;  and  in  what  sense,  the  connection,  or 
nature  of  the  subject,  or  both  together,  must  de- 
termine. Now,  it  is  admitted  that  the  geological 
sense  of  "  an  age,"  or  "  a  long,  indefinite  period  of 
time,"  is  not  the  common  and  proper  import  of  the 
term.  Professor  Silliman  says,*  "  It  is  agi'eed  on  ail 
hands,  that  the  Hebrew  word  here  used  for  '  day,'  al- 
though frequently  used  for  time,  usually  signified 
a  period  of  twenty-four  hours."  And  it  is  obvious, 
and  admitted  too,  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  con- 
nection in  which  the  term  is  used  in  this  case  to 
demand  a  different  signification.  It  is  the  nature  of 
the  subject  alone  that  is  supposed  to  demand  it.  But 
how  does  this  do  it?  Only  in  this  way  —  "Here  are 
certain  geological  results ;  if  these  were  produced 
by  the  same  causes  operating  according  to  the  same 
laws  as  at  present,  they  could  not  have  been  pro- 
duced in  twenty  four  hours,  but  must  have  been  the 

*  Suggestions  relative  to   the  Philosophy  of  Geology;  &c.; 
p.  107. 


26  THE    SABBATH 

product  of  a  series  of  years.  Hence  the  nature  of 
the  case  compels  us  to  put  such  construction  on  the 
term  in  question."  True,  if  they  were  so  produced. 
But  what  right  has  geology  to  assume  this?  That 
she  does  assume  it,  is  plain.  Thus  Professor  S. 
says,*  "Although  the  materials  (of  the  earth)  were 
created  by  almighty  Power,  they  were  evidently  left 
to  the  operation  of  physical  laws"  in  the  production 
of  the  various  results.  Hence, f  "by  surveying  the 
causes  that  are  still  in  full  operation,  the  geological 
events  that  are  now  in  progress,  and  the  effects  that 
are  proceeding  without  impediment  or  delay,  we 
thus  discover,  that  since  the  creation,  as  regards  geo- 
logical causes,  all  things  remain  as  they  were ;  no  new 
code  of  physical  laws  has  been  enacted.^'^  In  this  way, 
and  this  only,  geology  gets  at  her  argument  from  the 
nature  of  the  case.  Aj-guing  from  the  present  to  the 
past,  she  first  assumes  that  "  no  new  code  of  physical 
laws  has  been  enacted  "  for  the  operation  of  "  geologi- 
cal causes,"  and  then  infers  that  geological  events  or 
effects  which  are  the  product  of  an  age  now  were  so 
at  creation,  and,  therefore,  that  "  day  "  in  the  Mosaic 
account  must  mean,  not  day  in  the  ordinary  sense, 
but  an  age,  or  long  series  of  years.  Nay,  to  meet  cer- 
tain Scripture  difficulties,  and  sustain  herself  in  this 
inference,  she  modestly  suggests  that  a  new  code  of 
physical  laws  has  been  enacted  to  govern  the  action 
of  astronomical  causes,  though  not  of  geological. 
Her  language  is,  X  "  As  already  suggested,  the  sun 
not  being  ordained  to  rule  the  day  until  the  fourth  of 
those  periods,  it  is  not  certain  that  even  after  this 

*  Suggestions,  &c.  p.  41.        t  Ibid.  p.  86.         %  Ibid.  p.  110. 


AT    CREATION.  27 

epoch,  those  early  revolutions  of  the  earth  on  its  axis 
were  as  rapid  as  now ;  for  these  might  cease  altogether, 
or  be  greatly  increased  in  rapidity,  without  affecting 
the  planetary  relations  of  the  earth  with  the  sun  and 
with  the  other  members  of  the  system." 

But  what  right  has  geology  to  all  these  assump- 
tions? Surely,  "by  surveying  the  (astronomical) 
causes  that  are  still  in  full  operation,  the  (astro- 
nomical) events  that  are  now  in  progress,  and  the  (as- 
tronomical) effects  that  are  proceeding  without  im- 
pediment or  delay,  we  thus  discover,  that  since  the 
creation,  as  regards  (astronomical)  causes,  all  things 
remain  as  they  were ;  no  new  code  of  physical  laws 
has  been  enacted,^''  And  the  discovery  is  surely  as 
real  in  this  case  as  in  the  other;  and,  being  real, 
what  becomes  of  the  inference  about  the  meaning  of 
the  term  "  day,"  after  the  fourth  period  of  creation  ? 
And  if  geology  may  suggest  such  a  change  in  the 
physical  laws  that  govern  the  planetary  system,  and 
work  out  its  astronomical  results,  why  may  not  crit- 
icism suggest  a  similar  change  in  the  laws  which 
regulate  the  action  of  geological  causes  in  the  pro- 
duction of  their  results  ?  And  if  she  makes  it,  how 
can  geology  disprove  it  ?  Here  are  certain  geologi- 
cal results  or  effects  that  have  come  down  to  us  from 
creation.  Can  geology  prove  that  they  are  the  prod- 
uct of  the  same  causes  as  produce  such  results 
now  ?  or,  that  those  causes,  if  the  same,  operated 
according  to  the  same  laws  then  as  now?  How 
knows  she  that  they  may  not  have  been  the  product 
of  causes  which,  acting  with  creative  energy,  and 
having  done  their  work  as  such,  have  now  become 
extinct,  or  given  place  to  other  causes,  the  same  in 


-^O  THE    S  ABB  ATE 

kind,  if  you  will,  but  of  different  energy— causes 
that  now  act  only  with  sustaining^  not  creative  en- 
ergy? Why  may  not  geological  causes,  having  ac- 
complished their  great  end  as  creative  causes,  have 
lost  as  much  of  their  original  energy  and  rapidity  of 
production,  as  she  herself  supposes  astronomical 
causes  to  have  gained?  And  in  that  event,  why 
may  not  results  which  would  be  now  the  product  of 
an  age,  have  been  then  the  product  of  a  day  ? 

Does  geology  tell  us  that  the  nature  of  the  results 
is  such  as  to  preclude  such  a  supposition  ?  that  « the 
crystals  and  crystallized  rocks,  the  entombed  re- 
mains of  animals  and  vegetables,  from  entire  trees 
to  lichens,  fuci,  and  ferns,  from  the  minutest  shell- 
fish and  microscopic  animalculae  to  gigantic  rep- 
tiles," &c.,  forbid  it?  in  a  word,  that  these  results 
all  look  as  if  they  were  the  product  of  long  periods, 
just  as  now?  Be  it  so.  But  suppose  that  among 
some  of  these  ancient  remains  (pardon  the  supposi- 
tion) Adam  and  Eve  should  be  found ;  would  they 
not  look  as  if  they  were  made  and  grew  up  to  ma- 
turity just  as  men  and  women  now  do?  But  was  it 
so?  Were  the  "materials  created  by  almighty 
Power,"  and  then  "  evidently  left  to  the  operation  of 
physical  laws  "  in  the  production  of  them  ?  And  if 
not,  how  will  geology  prove  it  so  in  regard  to  beasts, 
or  birds,  or  fish,  or  reptiles,  or  rocks?  Why  may 
not  these  have  been  flung  from  their  Creator's  hand 
full  grown,  as  well  as  man  ?  Does  geology  say  God 
does  not  make  these  things  so  now  ?  Nor  does  he 
make  man  so  now.  And  if  the  manner  of  making 
them  now  is  decisive  of  the  manner  of  making  them 
then,  why  is  not  the  same  true  of  the  manner  of 


AT    CREATION.  29 

making  man  then?  Does  geology  say,  that,  from 
the  necessity  of  the  case,  man  must,  in  the  first  in- 
stance, be  made  full  grown  ?  And  how  does  it  ap- 
pear that,  from  the  same  cause,  every  order  of  exist- 
ence, animate  and  inanimate,  must  not  also,  at  the 
first,  be  so  made  ?  And  what,  then,  becomes  of  the 
argument  from  geological  remains  ? 

These  questions  are  not  intended  to  ridicule  the 
geological  argument,  nor  to  say  that  it  is  without 
foundation,  but  only  to  show  that  it  has  its  difficul- 
ties, and  that  these  are  such  and  so  many  as  to  forbid 
its  being  used  very  flippantly  to  disprove  the  institu- 
tion of  the  Sabbath  at  creation. 

But,  5.  Admit  all  that  geology  claims,  and  still  the 
objection  is  not  valid.  For,  were  the  periods  of  cre- 
ation longer  or  shorter,  geology  does  not  deny  that 
they  were  periods  of  time,  and  that  they  wei'e  so  far 
equal  and  regularly-returning  periods,  as  to  be  fitly 
represented  by  the  regularly-returning  days  with 
which  we  are  familiar.  And  this  admitted,  the  whole 
force  of  the  objection  is  gone.  For,  be  the  period  in 
which  God  rested  and  was  refreshed,  a  longer  or  a 
shorter  one,  it  was  the  seventh  period  from  the  com- 
mencement of  creation.  It  answered  to,  and  is  fitly 
represented  by,  the  shorter  yet  seventh  day,  with 
which  man,  the  race,  is  and  has  been  familiar,  if  not 
at  the  outset,  yet  through  all  the  subsequent  genera- 
tions of  his  being.  When  God  therefore  rested  on 
his  or  creation's  seventh  period  of  time,  and  then,  on 
that  account,  sanctified  or  set  apart  the  seventh  day 
for  a  similar  rest  to  man,  he  set  apart  that  period 
with  which  man,  as  a  race,  was,  or  was  to  be,  familiar ; 
and  which  was,  or  was  to  be,  to  man,  just  what  his 
3# 


30      .  THE    SABBATH   AT   CREATION. 

own  seventh  period  had  been  to  himself.  If  the  two 
periods  were  not  then  of  the  same  identical  length, 
the  one  was  at  least  the  fit  representative  of  the 
other,  and  man,  in  resting  on  the  one,  was  furnished 
with  a  fit  emblem  and  a  sweet  memorial  of  God  rest- 
ing fi'om  his  work  of  creation  on  the  other.  Such  a 
setting  apart  or  sanctification  of  each  returning  sev- 
enth day,  as  a  day  of  holy  rest  for  man,  from  the 
creation  downward,  was  therefore  alike  significant 
and  proper. 


CHAPTER    IV. 

THE    SABBATH    IN    THE    PATRIARCHAL    AGE. 

The  Bible,  it  is  said,  "  contains  no  example  of  any 
man  keeping  a  Sabbath  before  the  time  of  Moses ; "  * 
nor  does  it  in  any  way  make  mention  of  a  Sabbath 
from  the  creation  to  the  giving  of  manna  in  the  wil- 
derness—  a  period  of  two  thousand  five  hundred 
years ;  and  how  could  this  be,  if  it  were  during  all 
that  period  an  existing  institution  ?  f 

This  objection  is  made  up  of  two  parts,  a  fact 
asserted,  and  an  inference  from  it.  The  fact  as- 
serted is,  that  no  mention  is  made  of  a  Sabbath 
during  the  period  in  question;  the  inference  is, 
therefore,  at  that  time,  there  was  no  Sabbath. 

1.  Suppose  we  admit  the  fact  asserted;  does  the 
inference  follow  ?  By  no  means.  For,  (1.)  the  history 
of  that  whole  period  is  given  in  a  single  book  and 
twelve  chapters  of  another.  If,  then,  there  be  no 
mention  of  the  Sabbath  in  a  history  so  brief,  it  is  not 
surprising,  nor  is  it  any  proof  that  it  did  not  exist. 
But,  (2.)  the  Sabbath  is  mentioned  only  five  times  in 
the  Jewish  Scriptures,  prophetic  and  historical  both, 
from  the  time  of  Moses  to  the  return  of  the  captivity 

*  Grew,  p.  3. 

t  The  argument;  substantially,  of  Paley  and  all  that  class  of 
writers. 


32  THE    SABBATH 

—  a  period  of  one  thousand  years ;  twice  in  prophe- 
cy, and  three  times  in  history.  And,  (3.)  in  the  entire 
histories  of  Joshua,  of  the  Judges,  of  Samuel,  and 
of  Saul,  —  a  period  of  about  five  hundred  years,  —  the 
Sabbath  is  not  mentioned  once.  Had  they  no  Sab- 
bath, then  ?  (4.)  From  Joshua  to  Jeremiah,  a  period 
of  eight  hundred  years,  not  one  word  is  said  of  cir- 
cumcision. Had  they  no  circumcision,  then  ?  In  all 
these  cases,  the  histoiy  is  much  more  minute  and  full 
than  in  the  other.  If  the  silence  of  the  record  is 
conclusive  in  the  one  case,  it  is  more  so  in  the  others. 
But  is  it  conclusive  ?  Were  the  Jews  without  a  Sab- 
bath from  Joshua  to  David  —  a  period  of  five  hun- 
dred years  ?  And  without  circumcision  from  Joshua 
to  Jeremiah  —  a  period  of  eight  hundred  ?  By  no 
means.  Moreover,  Noah,  we  are  told,  (2  Pet.  ii.  5,) 
was  "a  preacher  of  righteousness."  But  we  have 
no  record  of  what  he  preached.  Did  he  therefore 
preach  nothing  ?    But, 

2.  I  deny  the  fact  asserted.  It  is  not  true  that 
there  is  no  mention  of  the  Sabbath  during  the  period 
in  question.  What  are  the  facts  ?  We  find  at  first  a 
distinct  record  of  its  original  institution,  with  the 
reasons  for  it,  —  a  record  as  distinct  as  is  that  of  the 
institution  of  marriage.  Nor,  from  the  record  merely, 
is  there  any  reason,  in  the  one  case  more  than  in  the 
other,  to  suppose  that  it  is  the  record  of  an  insti- 
tution first  established  two  thousand  five  hundred 
years  after  creation.  So  far  as  the  record  goes,  it  is 
in  both  cases  the  clear  record  of  institutions  estab- 
lished at  creation.  At  the  outset,  then,  the  mention  is 
distinct  and  clear.  And  being  so,  it  is  manifest  that, 
subsequently,  in  so  brief  a  history,  we  ought  to  ex- 


IN   THE    PATRIARCHAL   AGE.  33 

pect  only  incidental  allusions  to  it,  if  any,  or  such 
existing  facts  and  occurrences  as  are  in  harmony 
with  the  supposition  of  its  existence.  And  if  we 
find  such  facts  and  occurrences  or  allusions,  it  is 
plain  that  we  not  only  have  a  mention,  but  all  the 
mention  of  its  existence  which  the  case  requires. 
Nay,  if  these  incidental  allusions,  and  these  existing 
facts  and  occurrences,  are  just  what  we  should  expect 
them  to  be  on  the  supposition  of  a  Sabbath,  so  that 
the  theory  or  supposition  of  a  Sabbath  affords  the 
only  or  even  the  better  solution  of  tlieir  existence  than 
any  other,  then  in  this  fact  we  have  the  mention  and 
the  proof  that  the  Sabbath  was.  And  we  have  all 
the  proof  that  science  has  that  the  sun  is  in  the 
centre  of  the  solar  system.  For  it  is  only  on  the 
ground  that  the  theory  or  supposition  of  the  sun's 
being  in  the  centre  of  the  system  affords,  not  the 
only,  but  a  better  solution  merely  of  existing  and  oc- 
curring facts  than  any  other  theory,  that  science,  with 
a  Newton  at  its  head,  declares  that  to  be  the  true 
theory,  and  summons  the  assent  of  the  scientific 
world  to  the  correctness  of  its  decision.  And  why 
shall  not  the  same  proof,  if  it  exist,  be  equally  valid 
here  ?  Does  such  proof  exist  ?  That  is  the  question 
now  before  us. 

(1.)  On  the  supposition  of  a  Sabbath,  we  should  ex- 
pect to  find  the  patriarchs  meeting  together  at  stated 
times  for  religious  worship.  Accordingly,  the  first  dis- 
tinct record  of  religious  worship  is,  (Gen.  iv.  3,)  that 
"in  process  of  time,"  or,  literally,  "at  the  end  of  days," 
Cain  and  Abel  brought  their  respective  offerings  to 
the  Lord.  And  the  fair  and  obvious  import  of  the 
record  is,  that  they  did  this  as  a  matter  of  course. 


34 


THE    SABBATH 


when  the  regular  or  stated  time  for  it  came  round. 
The  next  record  (Gen.  iv.  26)  is,  that  at  the  birth  of 
Enos,  when  his  father,  Seth,  was  one  hundred  and 
five  years  old,  "  began  men  to  call  upon  the  name  of 
the  Lord."  What  was  this  but  public,  social  wor- 
ship? The  writer  surely  does  not  mean  to  inform 
us  that  there  was  no  family  worship  before.  For  we 
have  the  record  of  that  in  the  offerings  of  Cain  and 
Abel.  Nor  can  he  mean  to  say  that  there  was  no 
private  worship  —  that  Adam  and  the  pious  Seth 
never  prayed  until  the  birth  of  Enos;  i.  e.  until  Seth 
was  one  hundred  and  five  years  old,  and  Adam  two 
hundred  and  thirty-five.  Surely  Adam  and  Seth  did 
not  live  all  that  time  without  private  prayer.  What 
can  the  passage  mean,  then,  but  that  when  Enos  was 
born,  —  i.  e.  as  soon  as  men  began  to  multiply, — they 
then  began  to  call  on  God  in  a  public,  social  way  ? 
But  such  worship  must  have  had  its  mutually-agreed 
upon,  or  di\\mG\y-appointed  stated  times.  How  else 
could  it  have  been  conducted  ?  * 

*  Since  the  sitting  of  the  Convention,  1  have  solicited  the 
opinion  of  Professor  Stuart,  of  Andover,  concerning  the  proper 
translation  and  interpretation  of  several  passages  used  in  the 
discussion.     The  following  is  his  view  of  the  passage  above  :  — 

"  Gen.  iv.  26,  '  Then  began  men  to  call,'  etc.,  or,  ^  Then  was 
a  commencement  made  of  calling,''  etc.,  is  rightly  translated. 
The  phrase,  nin"*  Dt^l   J^lD^  {liqra  beshem  Yehovah,)  means, 

T     :        ••  :  |:  • 

invocation  upon  the  name  of  God,  and  this  in  a  social  and  public 

manner.     (Compare  Gen.  xii.  8  j  xiii.  4  5  xxi.  33  j  xxvi.  25.     Ps. 

cv.  1.    Is.  xii.  45  xli.  25.)     It  can  mean  neither  less  nor  more 

here,  as  I  think,  than  that  public  social  worship  then  commenced, 

i.  e.  so  soon  as  men  began  to  multiply.    The  writer  does  not 

mean  to  intimate  that  the  pious  Seth  did  not  praij,  before  his  son 

was  bom  to  him ;   what  can  he  intimate  but  social  worship  ? 

When  —  is  not  said." 


^ 


IN   THE    PATRIARCHAL    AGE. 


Further,  in  the  subsequent  history,  we  find  that 
whenever  the  patriarchs  pitched  their  tents  with  a 
view  to  dweUing  for  any  length  of  time  in  a  place, 
they  always  built  an  altar  there  for  public  ivorship. 
When  Noah  came  out  of  the  ark,  (Gen.  vii.  20,)  the 
first  thing  was  to  "  build  an  altar  unto  the  Lord,"  and 
ofler  sacrifice.  When  Abraham  originally  entered 
Canaan,  at  his  first  stopping  place,  (Gen.  xii.  7,)  "  there 
builded  he  an  altar  unto  the  Lord,  who  appeared  unto 
him."  When  he  removed,  (Gen.  xii.  8,)  and  "  pitched 
his  tent"  at  a  second  place,  "there  he  builded  an 
altar  unto  the  Lord,  and  called  upon  the  name  of  the 
Lord."  On  his  return  from  Egypt,  whither  he  had 
gone  on  account  of  a  famine,  he  sojourned  a  season 
in  Abimelech's  country,  and  then  came  (Gen.  xiii.  3, 4) 
to  Bethel,  "  unto  the  place  of  the  altar  which  he  had 
made  there  at  the  first ;  and  there  he  called  on  the 
name  of  the  Lord."  When,  on  his  separation  from 
Lot,  (Gen.  xiii.  18,)  he  "  removed  his  tent,  and  dwelt 
in  the  plain  of  Mamre,  he  built  there  an  altar  unto  the 
Lord."  Subsequently,  (Gen.  xxi.  33,  and  xxii.  19,)  when 
he  "  dwelt  at  Beersheba,"  he  made  a  similar  arrange- 
ment for  public  worship  there.  The  other  patriarchs 
did  the  same.  When  Isaac  (Gen.  xxvi.  6,  25)  "  dwelt 
in  Gerar,"  he  "builded  an  altar  there,  and  called  upon 
the  name  of  the  Lord."  When  Jacob  (Gen.  xx-xiii. 
18,20)  "pitched  his  tent"  before  Shalem,  "he  erected 
there  an  altai*,  and  called  it  God,  the  God  of  Israel." 
When,  in  that  residence,  some  of  his  family  (Gren. 
XXXV.  1 — 6)  had  fallen  in  with  the  sun'ounding  idola- 
try, God  directed  him  to  go  up  to  Bethel,  and  "  dwell 
there,  and  make  there  an  altar  unto  God ; "  and  he 
did  so.    And,  finally,  when  he  took  up  his  journey 


36  THE    SABBATH 

with  his  family  for  Egypt,  he  stopped  (Gen.  xlvi.  1)  at 
Beei'sheba,  that  long-established  place  of  worship, 
and  "  offered  sacrifices  unto  the  God  of  his  father." 
Now,  what  is  all  this  but  stated  places  for  stated  as 
well  as  occasional  and  special  seasons  of  public 
worship  ?  Suppose  a  company  of  Christians,  wan- 
dering, like  the  patriarchs  and  their  tribes,  from  place 
to  place.  Wherever  they  stop  for  any  length  of  time, 
and  they  are  at  liberty  to  do  it,  they  build  a  church, 
and  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord.  Now,  admit  it 
to  be  a  part  of  their  religion  to  keep  a  Sabbath,  and 
these  churches  are  not  only  just  what  you  would  ex- 
pect to  find,  but  they  are  all  so  many  proofs  of  the 
actual  existence  and  observance  of  that  Sabbath. 
For  what  can  their  design  be,  except  to  accommo- 
date the  public,  social,  and  stated,  as  well  as  occa- 
sional worship  of  the  whole  company  or  tribe  ?  And 
what  less  than  this  could  have  been  the  design  of  the 
patriarchal  altars?  What  less  can  they  argue  than 
social,  public  worship,  at  stated  times  ? 

(2.)  On  the  supposition  of  a  Sabbath,  as  there  is 
nothing  in  the  nature  of  time  itself  to  give  one  por- 
tion a  preference  over  another,  and  the  appointment 
of  one  period  mther  than  another  must  be  in  this  sense 
arbitrary,  we  should  expect  that,  in  deciding  upon 
it,  God  would  first  select  so  large  a  portion  as  would 
best  subserve  the  design  of  its  consecration  as  a  Sab- 
bath ;  second,  seize  upon  some  fitting  and  ever-mem- 
orable occasion  for  the  designation  of  the  particular 
time ;  and,  third,  shape  their  religious  arrangements 
and  observances  so  as  to  make  them,  as  far  as  possible, 
so  many  mementos  of  it.  And  this  is  just  what  God, 
on  the  supposition  in  question,  has  done.    A  seventh 


IN   THE    PATRIARCHAL   AGE.  37 

is  such  a  portion  of  time.  The  close  of  creation  was 
such  an  occasion.  During  the  period  in  question,  as 
well  as  subsequently,  their  religious  arrangements 
and  observances  bore  every  where  the  impress  of 
sevens,  and  were  thus  only  so  many  mementos  of  a 
Sabbath,  returning  regularly  on  every  seventh  day. 
Thus,  when  Noah  was  about  to  go  into  the  ark,  the 
direction  (Gen.  vii.  2)  was,  "  Of  every  clean  beast," 
which  were  the  beasts  for  sacrifice,  "  thou  shalt  t£ike 
to  thee  by  sevens."  The  mourning  for  Jacob  was  a 
mourning  of  seven  days.  That  of  Job's  friends  with 
him  was  seven  days.  The  token  or  seal  of  Abra- 
ham's covenant  with  Abimelech  was  (Gen.  xxi.  30) 
"  seven  ewe  lambs."  The  sacrifice  that  Job  offered 
for  his  friends  when  the  days  of  his  trial  were  ended, 
(Job  xlii.  8,)  was  "  seven  bullocks  and  seven  rams." 
And  in  later  periods  especially,  almost  every  thing 
had  the  impress  of  sevens  upon  it.    But, 

(3.)  On  the  supposition  of  a  Sabbath  existing  and 
observed  during  the  patriarchal  period,  we  should  ex- 
pect to  find  a  division  of  time  into  weeJcs.  Was  there 
such  a  division  ?  Nothing  can  be  plainer.  It  stands 
out  boldly  on  the  face  of  the  entire  record.  When 
God  threatened  the  flood,  (Gen.  vii.  4,)  the  language  is, 
"For  yet  seven  days,  and  I  will  cause  it  to  rain." 
When  Noah  had  entered  the  ark,  and  all  was  ready, 
(v.  10,)  "it  came  to  pass,  after  seven  days,  that  the 
waters,"  &c.  When  the  flood  had  abated,  and  Noah 
had  sent  out  the  dove,  and  she  returned,  (viii.  10,)  "he 
staid  yet  other  seven  days,^^  and  sent  her  out  again. 
And  when  she  returned,  (v.  12,)  "  he  staid  yet  other 
seven  days^''  and  sent  her  out  again.  When  Jacob 
negotiated  for  his  wife,  the  stipulation  of  Laban 
4 


38  THE    SABBATH 

(Gen.  xxix.  27)  was,  "Fulfil  her  week^^  of  years ;  and 
(v.  28)  "Jacob  did  so,  and  fulfilled  her  iveeV  When 
Jacob  died,  and  Joseph,  with  his  brethren,  went  up 
to  the  burial,  (Gen.  1.  10,)  "he  made  a  mourning  for 
his  father  seven  days.^^  When  Job's  friends  came  to 
sympathize  with  him  in  his  affliction,  (Job  ii.  13,) 
"  they  sat  dowTi  with  him  upon  the  ground  seven  days 
and  seven  nights,^^  When  God  sent  the  plague  of 
blood  on  Egypt,  (Ex.  vii.  25,)  ^^  seven  days  were  ful- 
filled," and  then  it  was  removed.  Can  it  be  doubted, 
then,  that  during  the  period  in  question,  there  was 
the  division  of  time  into  weeks,  or  periods  of  seven 
days  ?  But  how  came  that  division  ?  It  was  not  a 
natural  one,  like  that  of  months  or  years,  but  purely 
an  artificial  or  conventional  one.  -How  came  it  then  ? 
What  gave  it  being?  What  kept  it  in  existence? 
How  can  you  explain  it,  except  on  tbe  theory  of  an 
existing  and  regularly-returning  Sabbath?  Is  not 
this,  then,  the  true  theory? 

Since  \^riting  the  above.  Professor  Stuart  has  po- 
litely furnished  me  with  the  following,  as  the  correct 
and  literal  translation  of  the  passages  above  :  — 

Gen.  vii.  4,  "For  after  days  yet  seven,"  etc. 

Gen.  vii.  10,  "And  it  came  to  pass  after  a  heptade 
(seventh)  of  days." 

Gen.  viii.  10, "  And  he  waited  yet  a  heptade  of  days,"etc. 

Gen.  viii.  12,  "And  he  waited  yet  a  heptade  of  days," 
etc.  Remark.  —  How  came  this  heptade  of  days  to  be  thus 
distinguished  ?  From  what  else  could  it  spring,  but  from 
the  original  institution  of  the  Sabbath  ? 

Thus  far  the  professor.  The  correctness  of  his 
view,  as  well  as  of  that  already  talcen,  is  rendered  in- 


IN    THE    PATRIARCHAL    AGE.  39 

disputable  by  the  following  coosiderations  :  —  In  Gen. 
xxix.  14,  we  are  informed  that  Jacob  abode  with 
Laban  "the  space  of  a  month."  The  original  is 
D''P''  t£^*in  [hodesh yamim,) and  means,  literally,  "anew 
moon  of  days."  The  verse,  literally  translated,  would 
be,  "  He  abode  with  him  a  new  moon  of  days."  In 
Numbers  xi.  20,  21,  the  form  of  expression  in  the 
original  is  the  same.  The  Israelites  were  to  eat  flesh 
"  a  whole  month ; "  i.  e.  "  a  new  moon  of  days." 
Here,  then,  we  have  this  fact,  that  the  new  moon  was 
to  the  Hebrew  a  measure  and  designation  of  time,  so 
that  when  he  wished  to  designate  a  month,  his  form 
of  expression  was,  "  a  new  moon  of  days."  In  the 
very  terms,  then,  by  which  the  Hebrew  was  wont  to 
designate  the  month,  we  have  the  proof,  (1.)  of  the 
existence,  and,  (2.)  of  the  regular  return,  of  the  new 
moon  at  such  intei-vals  of  time  as  made  it  the  natural, 
and,  therefore,  the  appropriate  measure  and  designa- 
tion of  the  period  in  question.  But  the  Hebrew  had 
another  form  of  expression  for  another  period  of 
time.  When  he  wished  to  describe  the  period  which 
we  call  a  week,  he  said  (Gen.  vii.  10 ;  viii.  10,  12) 
D''D"'  nxi^ty  {skihath  yamim;)  literally,  a  "heptade,"  or 
"  seventh  of  days."  What,  now,  is  the  fair  and  ne- 
cessary inference  ?  Why,  that,  as  the  new  moon,  by 
its  existence  and  regular  return,  came  to  be  the  nat- 
ural measure  and  designation  of  its  period  of  time, 
so  the  Sabbath,  by  its  existence  and  regular  return, 
came  to  be  the  artificial  or  conventional  measure  and 
designation  of  its  period.  Did  the  Hebrew,  when  he 
said  "  a  new  moon  of  days,"  mean  a  month  ?  Equally 
clear  is  it,  that  when  he  said  "  a  heptade,"  or  "  seventh 


40      THE  SABBATH  IN  THE  PATRIARCHAL  AGE. 

of  days,"  he  meant  a  week.  Did  the  Hebrew,  when 
he  so  described  the  month,  give  proof,  in  the  very 
form  of  his  expression,  of  the  existence  and  regular 
return  of  the  new  moon  ?  So,  when  he  described  the 
week  as  "  a  seventh  of  days,"  he  gave  equal  proof  of 
the  existence  and  regular  return  of  the  Sabbath. 


CHAPTER    V. 

THE    SABBATH    IN    EGYPT. 

If  the  Sabbath  had  an  existence,  and  its  observance 
were  so  important,  why,  it  is  asked,  do  we  hear  no 
mention  of  it  during  the  four  hundred  and  thirty  years' 
bondage  in  Egypt?  It  must  have  been  encroached 
upon  by  the  severity  of  that  bondage;  why,  then, 
have  we  no  complaint  of  such  encroachment,  nor,  in- 
deed, any  intimation  whatever  of  a  Sabbath  during 
all  that  period  ? 

This  is  the  same  objection  as  before,  only  that  its 
form  is  changed,  and  its  application  is  limited  to  a 
portion,  instead  of  extending  to  the  whole  of  the 
two  thousand  five  hundred  years.  It  is  made  up,  as 
before,  of  a  fact  asserted  and  an  inference  from  it. 
The  fact  is,  that  there  was  no  such  complaint  or 
intimation;  the  inference  is,  therefore  there  was  then 
no  Sabbath. 

1.  Admit  the  fact,  the  inference  does  not  follow. 
The  whole  history  of  that  bondage,  and  of  the  deliver- 
ance from  it,  is  given  in  twelve  short  chapters.  Of 
these,  eight  are  occupied  with  the  description  of  the 
plagues,  and  the  various  measures  taken  to  effect 
the  deliverance,  and  three  with  what  passed  between 
God  and  Aaron  and  Moses,  preparatory  to  their  un- 
4* 


42  THE    SABBATH 

dertaking  the  work,  leaving  but  07ie,  or  less  than  one, 
for  the  entire  history  of  the  four  hundred  and  thirty- 
years'  bondage.  And  is  it  wonderful,  tliat  in  so  brief 
a  history  of  so  long  a  period,  there  should  be  no  com- 
plaint of  the  violation,  and  no  intimation  of  the 
observance,  of  an  existing  Sabbath  ?  By  no  means. 
Were  the  record  as  silent  as  alleged,  it  would  prove 
nothing.    But, 

2.  It  is  not  true  that  the  record  is  silent.  So  far 
from  it,  brief  as  it  is,  it  is  manifest,  on  the  whole  face 
of  it,  that  the  encroachments  of  Egyptian  bondage  on 
the  rehgious  opportunities,  privileges,  and  rights  of  the 
Israelites,  and  so  upon  their  religion,  were  the  head 
and  front  of  its  offending  ;  and  that  the  great  object 
of  God  in  effecting  their  deliverance,  was  their  resto- 
ration to  and  confirmation  in  the  worshiji  and  service 
of  himself  as  the  true  God,  in  opj)osition  to  the  idol 
gods  of  the  Egyptians.  This  was  the  great  end.  As 
a  necessary  means  to  this,  the  great  object  was  the 
restoration  to  the  Hebrews  of  their  religious  and  con- 
sequent civil  liberty.  They  could  not  serve  God  with- 
out the  liberty  to  do  it.  This,  they  had  not  in  Egypt. 
And  as  the  question  of  American  freedom  was  once 
wraj)ped  up  in  the  simple  question  of  a  threepenny 
tax  on  tea,  so  the  question  of  Hebrew  freedom  was  in 
this  case  wrap]>ed  up  in  the  question  whether  they 
should  have  their  Sabbath,  with  its  oi)portunities  of 
sacrifice  and  worship,  and  its  connected  religious 
privileges  and  rights.  Practically,  then,  as  a  means  to 
its  appropriate  end,  the  great  question  at  issue  be- 
tween God  and  Pharaoh,  in  respect  to  tlie  deliverance 
of  the  Israelites,  was  THAT  OF  THE  SABBATH, 


IN    EGYPT.  43 

WITH   ITS    CONNECTED   PRIVILEGES  AND 
RIGHTS. 

No  intelligent  and  careful  reader  of  the  Bible  can 
fail  to  see,  on  a  moment's  reflection,  that  this  is  a  true 
statement  of  the  real  questions  at  issue  in  that  mar- 
vellous interposition  of  Divine  Providence.  But  when 
the  mandate  of  Jehovah  first  came  to  Pharaoh,  (Ex. 
V.  1,)  "  Let  my  people  go,  that  they  may  hold  a  feast 
unto  me  in  the  vi^ilderness,"  the  prompt  and  contemp- 
tuous reply  (v.  2)  vras,  "Who  is  Jehovah,  that  I 
should  obey  his  voice,  to  let  Israel  go  ?  I  know  not 
Jehovah,  nor  will  I  let  Israel  go."  Jehovah's  claims, 
as  Deity,  were  proudly  questioned,  and  his  authority 
contemned.  This  raised  a  previous  question^  viz.  Who 
is  the  true  God  —  the  gods  of  Egypt^  or  the  God  of  Is- 
rael ?  This,  of  course,  must  be  settled  before  it  could 
be  settled  whether  Israel  should  be  allowed  to  serve 
him.  To  settle  this,  there  must  be  a  trial  of  strength. 
That  trial  must  be  of  such  a  nature  as  to  show  that  the 
false  gods  were  perfectly  in  the  power,  and  subject  to 
the  control,  of  the  true  one.  Such  was  the  trial.  Each 
and  all  of  the  divine  judgnjents  in  the  case  were  not 
only  designed,  but  in  their  nature  fitted,  to  confound 
the  gods  of  Egypt,  and  establish  the  claims  of  Israel's 
God.  The  aptness  and  the  force  of  the  demonstra- 
tion, in  its  various  steps,  were  truly  wonderful,  Noth- 
mg  could  exceed  the  clearness  and  the  impressive- 
ness  with  which  each  successive  judgment  made  it 
manifest,  that,  in  the  hands  of  Israel's  God,  the  gods 
of  Egypt  were  weak  and  powerless,  and,  so  far  from 
affording  protection  to  their  deluded  followers,  could 
themselves  be  turned,  by  him,  at  any  moment,  and  to 
any  extent,  into  a  torment  and  a  curse.    Introductory 


44 


THE    SABBATH 


to  the  plagues,  (Ex.  vii.  10—12,)  Aaron's  rod  became 
a  serpent ;  and,  when  the  magicians  cast  down  their 
rods  that  they  might  become  so,  so  far  from  doing  it, 
Aaron's  swallowed  them  —  thereby  showing  the  supe- 
riority of  his  God  to  theirs.*    Then  came  the  plagues. 

*  The  following  view  of  the  magicians'  miracles  is  from  Pro- 
fessor Bush's  Notes  on  Exodus.  The  Hebrew  will  bear  the 
translation  which  he  gives  it,  and  the  nature  of  the  case  cer- 
tainly demeuids  it. 

"  Instead  of  reciting  the  various  opinions  of  commentators 
upon  this  subject,  on  which  volumes  have  been  written,  we  shall 
briefly  propound  the  interpretation  which,  of  all  others,  strikes  us 
as  the  most  probable.  And  we  regret  that,  from  its  depending 
so  entirely  upon  the  idiomatic  structure  of  the  Hebrew,  the  mere 
English  reader  will  not  perhaps  be  able  fully  to  appreciate  its 
force.  We  will  endeavor  to  make  it,  however,  if  not  demon- 
strable, at  least  intelligible.  It  is  a  canon  of  interpretation  of 
frequent  use  in  the  exposition  of  the  sacred  writings,  that  verbs 
of  action  sometimes  signify  merely  the  will  and  endeavor  to  do 
the  action  in  question.  Thus,  Ezek.  xxiv.  13,  '  I  have  purified 
thee,  and  thou  wast  not  purged  5 '  i.  e.  I  have  endeavored,  used 
means,  been  at  pains,  to  purify  thee.  John  v.  44,  '  How  can 
ye  believe  which  receive  honor  one  of  another  ?  '  i.  e.  endeavor 
to  receive.  Rom.  ii,  4,  '  The  goodness  of  God  leadeth  thee  to 
repentance  5 '  i.  e.  endeavors  or  tends  to  lead  thee.  Amos  ix.  3, 
*  Though  they  be  hid  from  my  sight  in  the  bottom  of  the  sea  5  * 
i.  e.  though  they  aim  to  be  hid.  1  Cor.  x.  33,  '  I  please  all  men  5 ' 
i.  e.  endeavor  to  please.  Gal.  v.  4,  '  Whosoever  of  you  are 
justified  by  the  law  3'  i.  e.  seek  and  endeavor  to  be  justified. 
Ps.  Ixix.  4, '  They  that  destroy  me  are  mighty  j '  i.  e.  that  en- 
deavor to  destroy  me  5  Eng.  '  that  would  destroy  me.'  Acts  vii. 
26,  '  And  set  them  at  one  again  j '  i.  e.  wished  and  endeavored  5 
Eng. '  would  have  set  them.'  The  passage  before  us  we  con- 
sider as  exhibiting  a  usage  entirely  analogous.  '  They  also  did 
in  like  manner  with  their  enchantments  j '  1.  e.  they  endeavored  to 
do  in  like  manner j  just  as  in  ch.  viii.  18,  it  is  said,  'And  the 
magicians  did  so  with  their  enchantments,  to  bring  forth  lice,  but 


IN    EGYPT.  45 

The  Nile,  with  its  imaginary  river-gods,  was  an  object 
of  pecuHar  sacredness  and  reverence  to  the  Egyp- 
tians. Blood  was  an  object  of  equal  abhorrence. 
The  first  plague  turned  the  holy  river  into  blood  — 
thus  pouring  contempt  on  it  and  its  gods.    The  frog 

they  could  not;'  the  words  bein^  precisely  the  same  in  both 
instEinces.  Adopting  this  construction,  we  suppose  that  the 
former  clause  of  verse  12  should  be  rendered,  '  For  they  cast 
down  every  man  his  rod,  that  they  might  become  serpents  5' 
which  the  Hebrew  reader  will  perceive  to  be  a  rendering  pre- 
cisely parallel  to  that  which  occurs  ch.  vi.  11,  '  Speak  unto 
Pharaoh  that  he  let  the  children  of  Israel  go  5 '  Heb.  '  and  he 
shall  let  go.'  So,  also,  ch.  vii.  2,  '  Shall  speak  unto  Pharaoh, 
that  he  send  5 '  Heb.  '  and  he  shall  send.'  The  magicians  cast 
down  their  rods  that  they  might  undergo  a  similar  transmutation 
with  that  of  Moses,  but  it  is  not  expressly  said  that  they  were  so 
changed,  and  we  therefore  incline  to  place  their  discomfiture  in 
the  loss  of  their  rods,  those  instruments  with  which  they  had 
Vainly  hoped  to  compete  with  Moses.  If  it  be  contended  that 
there  was  some  kind  of  change  produced  on  the  magicians'  rods, 
but  that  it  was  effected  by  feats  of  jug-gling,  or  legerdemain,  and 
amounted  in  fact  merely  to  an  optical  illusion,  it  may  be  asked 
whether  it  is  probable  that  they  were  prepared  with  all  the  ne- 
cessary apparatus  to  perform  their  prodigy  at  one  and  the  same 
interview  with  that  here  mentioned.  Moreover,  if  they  had 
practised  a  deception  by  imposing  upon  the  senses  of  the  com- 
pany, would  not  Moses  have  triumphantly  delected  and  exposed 
it  ?  We  doubt,  therefore,  whether  there  were  any  change  at  all 
produced  upon  the  rods  of  the  magicians.  Should  it  be  said 
that  precisely  the  same  expression  is  made  use  of  in  respect  to 
Aaron's  rod,  and  that  we  have  as  good  evidence  of  the  transfor- 
mation of  their  rods  as  of  his,  we  answer,  that  it  is  expressly  assert- 
ed (v.  10)  of  Aaron's'  rod,  that  it  became  a  serpent,  while  of  the 
others  this  is  not  asserted,  at  least  as  we  interpret  the  language." 

The  same  principles  of  interpretation  apply  to  what  is  said  of 
the  other  plagues.  Ex.  vii.  22  says,  in  reference  to  the  plague  of 
blood;  "  And  the  magicians  did  so  with  their  enchantments  5 "  i.  e. 


46  THE    SABBATH 

was  held  sacred  by  them,  as  an  emblem  of  preserva- 
tion in  floods  and  inundations.  The  second  plague 
filled  the  waters  and  the  land  of  Egypt  with  them  to 
such  an  extent,  that  when  it  ceased,  so  far  from  min- 
istering preservation,  the  Egyptians  (Ex.  viii.  14) 
"gathered  them  together  in  heaps,  and  the  land  stank" 
with  their  rotting  and  polluted  carcasses.  To  enter 
the  temple  of  any  of  then*  deities  with  lice,  or  any 
vermin  of  the  kind,  upon  their  garments,  was  to  the 
Egyptians  one  of  the  greatest  of  profanations;  so 
much  so,  that  to  prevent  it,  they  generally  w^ore  two 
linen  garments,  one  over  the  other,  and  laid  aside 
the  outer  whenever  they  approached  their  gods.  By 
the  third  plague,  (Ex.  viii.  17,) "  all  the  dust  of  the  land 
became  lice  throughout  all  the  land  of  Egypt,"  cover- 
ing man  and  beast,  so  that  not  one  of  them  could  go 
into  the  presence  of  his  idol  god  without  offering  in- 
sult to  him.  Among  the  living  objects  of  their  wor- 
ship, the  bull,  the  heifer,  the  ram,  the  he-goat, were  most 
sacred.    The  fifth  plague  laid  these  dead  at  the  feet 

attempted  to  do  so.  It  is  not  said  that  they  succeeded.  So, 
Ex.  viii.  7  should  read,  "  And  the  magicians  did  so,  (^attempted  to 
do  so,)  that  they  might  bring  up  frogs."  And  (Ex.  viii.  18)  we 
have  it  in  terms,  that  "  the  magicians  did  so  with  their  enchant- 
ments, to  bring  forth  lice,  but  they  could  not.''  On  this  interpre- 
tation the  magicians  made  four  attempts  in  behalf  of  Egypt's 
gods  to  cope  with  Israel's  God,  and  failed  in  all.  As  was  natural, 
they  then  acknowledged,  "  This  is  the  finger  of  God."  Had  they, 
however,  succeeded  in  the  other  cases,  so  far  from  acknowledging 
the  finger  of  God  in  consequence  of  their  failure  in  the  one  last  case, 
they  would  but  have  attributed  it  to  some  other  cause,  and  gone 
on  still  testing  the  strength  of  Egypt's  gods  with  the  God  of  Israel. 
Success  in  three  cases,  and  failure  in  one,  surely  would  not  have 
wrung  out  the  condemnation  of  themselves  and  their  gods  in  the 
unwelcome  acknowledgment  that  Israel's  was  the  true  God. 


IN    EGYPT.  47 

of  their  worshippers.  Of  inanimate  things,  the  heav- 
enly host  —  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars  —  were  favorite 
objects  of  adoration.  The  ninth  plague  put  out  their 
light  over  all  the  Egyptians,  and  showed  that  neither 
sun,  nor  moon,  nor  stars,  could  prevent  the  super- 
natural darkness  of  the  superior  power  of  Israel's 
God.  So  it  was  with  all  the  plagues.  They  were 
not,  nor  were  they  designed  to  be,  marvellous  exhibi- 
tions merely  of  divine  power,  made  only  for  effect, 
and  irrespective  of  the  great  question  at  issue,  but 
made  with  special  reference  to  that  question.  Each 
was  not  only  an  exhibition  of  such  power,  but,  in  its 
nature  and  design,  a  test  of  strength  between  Israel's 
God  and  the  gods  of  Egypt.  "  Yea,  (Ex.  xii.  12,) 
against  all  the  gods  of  Egypt  I  will  execute  judg- 
ment ;  /am  the  Lord,"  was  the  purpose  and  the  plan 
of  that  whole  interposition.  By  such  a  judgment  it 
was  that  the  great  question,  "  Who  is  tfie  true  God^  " 
was  settled,  and  the  claim  of  Israel's  God,  "J"  (not 
the  gods  of  Egypt)  "  am  the  Lord,''^  fully  established. 
This  done,  the  Hebrews  were  won  back  to  the  God 
of  their  fathers ;  the  question  of  their  deliverance  was 
settled ;  and  the  way  was  opened  for  the  restoration 
to  them  of  their  religious  and  consequent  civil  liberty ;  i.  e. 
of  those  religious  opportunities,  privileges,  and  rights, 
of  which  their  bondage  had  deprived  them,  and 
which,  as  a  means  to  an  end,  involved  the  question  of 
their  liberty,  and  were  essential  to  their  continued  fidel- 
ity to  their  great  Deliverer ;  and,  as  such,  were  in  fact 
the  question  at  issue  between  him  and  Pharaoh.  The 
p'cvious  question  was,  Who  is  the  true  God  ?  That 
settled,  the  main  question  was.  Shall  Israel  be  allowed 
to  serve  him  ?  i.  e.  Shall  Israel  have  their  religious,  and, 


48  THE    SABBATH 

80  far,  their  civil  freedom  ?  To  test  this,  the  practiced 
question  was,  Shall  Israel  have  their  Sabbath,  with  its 
opportunities  of  worship  and  sacrifice,  and  its  connect- 
ed privileges  and  rights  ?  It  was,  throughout,  a  grand 
controversy  between  God  and  Pharaoh  for  the  religious 
freedom  of  his  people,  as  that  freedom  was  involved 
in,  and  made  to  turn  upon,  their  liberty  to  observe  the 
Sabbath,  with  its  connected  opportunities  of  sacrifice 
and  worship.    That  it  was  so  is  manifest, 

(1.)  From  the  fact,  that  the  one,  uniform,  and  great 
demand  of  Moses  and  Aaron,  in  the  name  of  God, 
and  on  behalf  of  the  people,  was,  that  they  might  go 
where  they  could  serve  God,  by  holding  a  religious 
festival  to  him  —  a  plain  declaration,  that  where  they 
were,  they  had  neither  the  time  nor  the  liberty  to  do 
it,  but  that  their  privileges  and  rights  in  these  re- 
tipects  were  taken  away.  In  their  first  interview 
with  Pharaoh,  (Ex.  v.  1, 3,)  the  demand,  in  its  original 
and  official  form,  was,  "  Thus  saith  Jehovah,  the  God 
of  Israel,  Let  my  people  go,  that  they  may  hold  a 
feast  (religious  festival)  unto  me  in  the  wilderness,"  — 
"Let  us  go,  we  pray  thee,  three  days' journey  into  the 
desert,  and  sacrifice  unto  the  Lord  our  God."  And 
subsequently  (compare  Ex.  vii.  16 ;  viii.  1,  20,  25,  27, 
28;  ix.  1,  13;  x.  3,  8,9,  24,25,26;  xii.  31,  32)  the 
one  unceasing  demand  was,  "  Let  my  people  go,  that 
they  may  serve  me."  — "  With  our  flocks  and  our 
herds  will  we  go  ;  for  we  must  hold  a  fea^t  (religious 
festival)  unto  the  Lord."  —  "Thou  must  give  us  also 
sacrifices  and  burnt-offerings,  that  we  may  sacrifice 
unto  the  Lord  our  God."  But  why  go  out  of  Egypt 
for  this,  except  on  the  ground  that  they  could  not  do 
it  in  Egypt  ? 


IN    EGYPT.  ^J^y^'^*^^  *   i 

(2.)  The  same  is  manifest  from  Pharaoh's  proposii  ^-^  N\a^ 
don  for  a  compromise.  When  visited  with  the 
plague  of  flies,  (Ex.  viii.  25,)  lie  "  called  for  Moses 
and  for  Aaron,  and  said,  Go  ye,  sacrifice  to  your  God 
in  the  land.^^  And  this  he  proffered  as  a  substitute  for 
going  into  the  wilderness  to  sacrifice.  But  how  could 
it  be  a  substitute,  except  on  the  ground  that  they  had 
not  been  allowed  to  sacrifice  "in  the  land"  before? 

(3.)  Moses'  answer  confirms  the  fact,  and  lets  us 
into  the  reason  of  it.  "It  is  not  meet,"  said  he,  (Ex. 
viii.  26,  27,)  "so  to  do;  for  we  shall  sacrifice  the 
abomination  of  the  Egyptians  to  the  Lord  our  God  : 
lo,  shall  we  sacrifice  the  abomination  of  the  Egyp- 
tians before  their  eyes,  and  will  they  not  stone  us  ?  "  * 
This  is  as  if  he  had  said,  "  We  cannot  do  so  ;  for  if 
we  do  we  must  sacrifice  the  bullock,  the  ram,  &c.,  — 
the  very  deities  of  the  Egyptians,  —  to  our  God.  Our 
favorite  sacrifices  will  be  their  favorite  gods.  What 
is  worship  to  us  will  be  sacrilege  to  them.  And  will 
they  look  quietly  on,  and  see  us,  their  slaves,  offer 
their  favorite  national  gods  in  sacrifice  to  our  God  ? 
It  cannot  be.  All  Egypt  will  be  in  arms  at  such  an 
outrage.  '  We  will  therefore  go  three  days'  journey 
into  the  wilderness,  and  sacrifice  to  the  Lord  our 
God.' "  Such  was  the  reply.  Can  it  be  doubted  that 
previous  to  this,  the  Israelites  had  neither  the  times, 
nor  the  privileges,  nor  the  rights,  of  such  worship, 
"in  the  land"? 

(4.)  As  a  general  thing,  the  Israelites,  while  in 
Egypt,  had  fallen  in  with  the  idolatry  of  their  op- 

*  The  Chaldee  version  has  it,  "For  the  beasts  which  the 
Egyptians  worship,  shall  we  oflfer  in  sacrifice  j  lo,  shall  we  offer 
for  sacrifice  the  beasts  which  the  Egyptians  worship  ?  " 


60  THE    SABBATH 

pressors  —  thereby  showing  that  they  had  lost  their 
disposition,  as  well  as  their  opportunities  and  rights, 
to  worship  Jehovah.  This  fact  is  plainly  asserted  in 
the  inspired  record.  When  Joshua  had  fairly  plant- 
ed them  in  the  promised  land,  in  his  exhortation  to 
them  just  before  his  death,  he  said,  (Jos.  xxiv.  14,) 
"Put  away  the  gods  which  your  fathers  served  on 
the  other  side  of  the  flood,  even  in  Egypt,  and  serve 
ye  the  Lord."  In  Ezekiel,  also,  (xx.  6 — 8,)  God  says, 
that  when  he  brought  them  out  of  F,gypt,  he  said  to 
them,  "  Cast  ye  away  every  man  the  abominations  of 
his  eyes,  and  defile  not  yourselves  with  the  idols  of 
Egypt ;  I  am  the  Lord  your  God.  But  they  rebelled 
against  me,  and  would  not  hearken  unto  me ;  they 
did  not  every  man  cast  away  the  abominations  of 
their  eyes,  neither  did  they  forsake  the  idols  of 
Egypt."  Indeed,  it  is  only  on  the  supposition  that, 
as  a  general  thing,  idolatry  had  been  the  habit  of 
Israel,  as  well  as  Egypt,  that  you  can  explain  the 
readiness  with  which  they  fell  away  to  the  worship 
of  the  molten  calf  at  Sinai.  After  witnessing  such 
marvellous  displays  of  divine  power,  such  convincing 
evidences  of  the  superiority  of  Jehovah  to  the  gods 
of  Egypt,  how  could  any,  but  a  people  habituated  to 
worship  those  gods,  and,  from  the  force  of  that  very 
habit,  still  half  in  doubt  whether  they  were  not  the 
true  ones,  wdthin  three  short  months,  actually  deny 
their  great  Deliverer,  and  bow  down  in  senseless 
homage  to  one  of  the  idol  gods  of  their  oppressors  ? 
On  any  other  supposition,  the  scene  at  Sinai  were 
little  less  than  a  miracle. 

But  whence  came  it,  that  idolatry  was  the  habit  of 
the  Hebrews  while  in  Egypt  ?    Not  from  the  force 


IN    EGYPT.  51 

of  example  merely ;  for  the  Hebrew,  being  a  herds- 
man, was  such  "  an  abomination  to  the  Egyptians," 
{Gen.  xlvi.  34,)  that  (Gen.  xUii.  32)  "the  Egyptian 
might  not  eat  bread  with  the  Hebrews."  This  fact, 
especially  when  accompanied  with  a  grinding  op- 
pression, would  beget  a  similar  prejudice  in  the  He- 
brew in  retuiTi,  and  so  destroy  the  force  of  example, 
in  leading  him  off  to  the  worship  of  his  oppressor's 
gods.  Causes  more  powerful  than  example,  then, 
and  better  adapted  to  the  end,  must  have  existed, 
and  conspired  to  work  out  such  a  result.  As  they 
could  not  worship  their  God  without  offering  insult 
and  committing  sacrilege  to  the  gods  of  Egypt,  sup- 
pose them  stripped,  by  the  strong  arm  of  oppression, 
of  all  their  religious  opportunities,  privileges,  and 
rights,  and,  in  all  public,  social  worship,  compelled 
to  worship  Egypt's  gods  or  none  ;  in  such  a  state  of 
things  you  have  causes  adequate  to  the  result.  With 
no  Sabbath,  with  its  stated  opportunities  for  public 
and  social  religious  instruction  and  worship ;  with 
no  occasional  opportunities  of  the  kind ;  and  with  no 
privileges  and  rights  peculiar  to  the  worship  of  their 
God,  —  and  this  continued  from  generation  to  genera- 
tion through  a  period  of  two  hundred  years  or  more, — 
no  wonder  that  they  forsook,  if  they  did  not  forget, 
the  God  of  their  fathers,  and  fell  in  with  the  idolatry 
of  their  oppressors.  On  this  supposition,  their  idol- 
atry is  explained.    On  no  other  can  it  be. 

(5.)  That  this  is  the  true  solution,  is  further  manifest 
from  the  manner  in  which  Pharaoh  first  received  the 
command  to  let  the  people  go.  The  first  part  of  that 
mandate  (Ex.  v.  1 — 8)  was,  "  Thus  saith  Jehovah,  the 
€rod  of  Israel,  Let  my  people  go."    To  this  Pharaoh 


53 


THE    SABBATH 


replied,  «Who  is  Jehovah,  that  I  should  obey  his 
voice  to  let  Israel  go?"  The  second  part  of  the 
mandate  was,  "  that  they  may  hold  a  feast  (a  festival 
of  sacrifice  and  vrorship)  to  me  in  the  wilderness." 
To  this  he  answered,  "  Wherefore  do  ye,  Moses  and 
Aaron,  let  the  people  from  their  works  ?  Behold,  the 
people  are  many,  yet  ye  make  them  "  (all)  ^'rest  from 
their  bm'dens!"  —  literally,  (/ws/i6a^^e?n,)  "ye  cause 
them  to  sabbatize,  or  keep  Sabbath  from  their  bur- 
dens !  "  —  Strange  infatuation,  that  you  should  expect 
me  to  allow  this !  Indeed,  worshippers  as  they  gen- 
erally are  of  Egypt's  gods,  what  real  care  have  they 
for  the  God  of  which  you  speak,  or  the  season  of 
religious  rest  and  sacrifice  for  which  you  clamor? 
Nay,  nay,  it  is  a  mere  pretence  —  a  cover  to  their  in- 
dolence. "They  be  idle"  —  "They  be  idle;  there- 
fore they  cry,  saying.  Let  us  go  and  sacrifice  to  our 
God."  Such  was  plainly  the  drift  and  meaning  of 
the  reply.  And  being  so,  what  is  it  but  a  clear  inti- 
mation, that  the  demand  of  Moses  and  Aaron  was  a 
demand  for  the  restoration  of  the  Sabbath,  with  its 
connected .  opportunities  and  privileges  of  religious 
instruction,  sacrifice,  and  worship? 

Moreover,  (6.)  the  term  "feast"  in  the  demand  is 
indicative  of  as  much  as  this.  That  the  Sabbath  was 
called  a  "  feast "  is  proved  by  Lev.  xxiii.  2, 3,  where  it  is 
named  as  one  of  "the  feasts  of  the  Lord."  That  the 
feast  which  Moses  demanded  was  some  religious  fes- 
tival, or  season  for  sacrifice  and  worship,  is  proved 
by  the  terms  of  the  demand  as  quoted  above,  p.  48. 
That  it  was  that  festival  or  season,  which  was  af- 
terwards the  distinguishing  badge  of  the  people  as 
the  worshippers  of  Jehovah,  and  which  was  most 


IN    EGYPT.  53 

sacredly  and  scrupulously  observed  by  them,  is  cer- 
tainly most  probable.  That  festival,  or  season,  was 
the  Sabbath.  After  their  departure  from  Egypt,  the 
first  "  feast,"  or  season  of  w^orship,  of  which  we  have 
any  account,  was  that  of  the  Sabbath.  In  the  sub- 
sequent enumeration  of  "the  feasts  of  the  Lord," 
(Lev.  xxiii.)  the  Sabbath  is  named  first  —  "These  are 
my  feasts.  Six  days  shall  work  be  done ;  but  the 
seventh  day  is  the  Sabbath  of  rest,"  &c.  Then  the 
several  yearly  feasts  are  named.  And  finally,  the 
Sabbath,  above  all,  was  made  their  distinguishing 
"  sign,"  or  badge,  as  the  worshippers  of  Jehovah,  and 
not  of  idols.  Can  it  be  doubted,  then,  that  this  was 
the  feast  so  sternly  demanded  by  Moses,  and  so  res- 
olutely refused  by  Pharaoh  ?  and,  therefore,  that  the 
grand  object  of  God's  interposition  in  the  case,  was, 
to  restore  the  Sabbath  to  his  people,  and  with  that 
their  religious  freedom  ?  and  this  done  to  leave 
them  no  excuse  for  not  serving  him  with  fidelity? 
Indeed,  (7.)  all  this  is  distinctly  declared  by  Moses 
in  the  subsequent  history.  In  Deut.  v.  12 — 15,  we  find 
the  following:  — 

"  Keep  the  Sabbath-day  to  sanctify  it,  as  Jehovah  thy 
God  hath  commanded  thee.  Six  days  thou  shall  labor, 
and  do  all  thy  work ;  but  the  seventh  day  is  the  Sabbath 
of  Jehovah  thy  God  :  in  it  thou  shalt  not  do  any  work, 
thou,  nor  thy  son,  nor  thy  daughter,  nor  thy  man-servant, 
nor  thy  maid-servant,  nor  thine  ox,  nor  thine  ass,  nor  any 
of  thy  cattle,  nor  thy  stranger  that  is  within  thy  gates ; 
that  thy  man-servant  and  thy  maid-servant  may  rest  as 
well  as  thou.  And  remember  that  thou  wast  a  servant 
in  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  that  Jehovah  thy  God  brought 
thee  out  thence,  through  a  mighty  hand  and  by  a  stretched- 
5* 


64  THE    SABBATH 

out  arm :  therefore  Jehovah  thy  God  commanded  thee  to 
keep  the  Sabbath-day." 

What  is  the  true  import  of  this  passage  ?  It  occurs 
in  the  midst  of  a  recapitulation  of  the  ten  command- 
ments. It  contains,  first,  an  injunction  to  keep  the 
Sabbath ;  then  a  declaration  that  the  seventh  day  of 
the  week  is  the  day  for  keeping  it ;  then  an  injunc- 
tion to  the  Hebrew^  to  abstain  from  all  ordinary  labor 
on  that  day,  and  to  let  his  children,  and  sei'vants,  and 
beasts,  do  the  same  ;  then  the  reason  of  this  provision 
for  the  servants  —  "  that  they  may  rest  as  well  as  thou ; " 
and  then  a  reference  to  his  bondage  in  Egypt,  and 
deliverance  from  it.  TVhy  this  reference  ?  Not,  surely, 
to  give  the  reason  for  the  original  institution  of  the 
Sabbath;  for  that  is  given  (Ex.  xx.  It)  thus  —  "For 
in  six  days  the  Lord  made  heaven  and  earth,  the  sea, 
and  all  that  in  them  is,  and  rested  the  seventh  day; 
wherefore  "  (because  he  did  this,  not  because  he  brought 
the  Hebrew^s  out  of  Egypt)  "the  Lord  blessed  the 
Sabbath-day,*  and  hallowed  it."  To  make  the  pas- 
sage before  us  give  another  and  a  different  reason,  is 
to  involve  the  Bible  in  contradiction.  The  obvious 
design  of  the  reference,  then,  was  to  give  force  to  the 
reason  of  the  provision  for  the  servants.  How  it 
would  give  force  to  that  reason,  may  be  seen  in  the 
following  paraphrase :  — 

"  Keep  the  Sabbath,  &c.,  and  let  your  servants 
keep  it,  that  they  may  rest  as  well  as  thou  ;  and,  that 

*  The  Septuagint,  and  several  other  versions;  have  this  :  —  "  The 
Lord  blessed  the  seventh  day,"  &c.  This  is  plainly  the  true 
reading ;  for  it  agrees  with  the  facts  in  the  case,  and  also  with 
the  original  record  in  Gen.  ii.  3. 


IN    EGYPT.  55 

thou  mayest  let  them  rest  as  well  as  thou,  remember 
that  thou  wast  a  servant  once  in  the  land  of  Egypt, 
where  thou  wouldst  have  been  glad  of  such  a  day  of 
rest,  butcouldstnot  have  it ;  and  remember,  also,  that 
the  Lord  thy  God  brought  thee  out  thence,  &c.,  be- 
cause fhat  *  the  Lord  thy  God  had  commanded  thee  to 
keep  the  Sabbath,  and  thou  couldst  not  do  it  there." 
This  view  is  demanded  by  the  context,  and  makes 
the  reference  to  the  bondage  in  Egypt  apt  and  for- 
cible. Well  might  the  Hebrew  let  his  servants  rest 
on  the  Sabbath,  when  he  remembered  how  he  was 
deprived  of  it  in  Egypt,  and  what  God  had  wrought 
to  give  it  back  to  him,  and  with  it  all  his  religious 
privileges  and  rights.  Can  it  be  doubted,  then,  that 
this  is  the  true  import  and  design  of  the  reference  ? 
And  being  so,  what  is  the  whole  passage  but  a  dis- 
tinct declaration,  that,  as  involving  the  question  of 
their  religious  freedom,  the  Sabbath,  with  its  oppor- 
tunities of  worship  and  its  connected  religious  priv- 
ileges and  rights,  was  the  great  question  at  issue 
between  God  and  Pharaoh  in  the  deliverance  of  the 

*  The  term  al-ken,  rendered  here  '•  therefore,"  is  often  used 
in  the  Bible  in  the  sense  of  ''  because  that/'  or  *^  on  account  of/-' 
as  may  be  seen  by  consulting  any  Hebrew  Lexicon  :  Or,  without 
any  change  in  the  translation,  the  paraphrase  may  run  thus:  — 
^^  Remember  that  thou  wast  a  servant  once  in  the  land  of  Egypt, 
where  thou  wouldst  have  been  glad  of  such  a  day  of  rest,  but 
couldst  not  have  it  5  and  that  then  the  Lord  thy  God  brought  thee 
out  thence,  that  thou  mightest  have  it.  Therefore,  because  ho 
has  done  all  this  to  give  it  back  to  you,  he  has  commanded  you 
anew  to  keep  it."  In  either  view,  the  passage  teaches  that  the 
Sabbath,  as  a  preexisting  institution,  was  the  reason  for  the  de- 
liverance, and  not  that  the  deliverance  was  a  reason  for  the 
institution  of  the  Sabbath. 


56  THE    SABBATH   IN   EGYPT. 

Hebrews  from  their  house  of  bondage  ?  Put,  then, 
these  items  together  —  the  demand  to  go  out  where 
they  could  keep  a  festival  of  sacrifice  and  worship  to 
the  Lord ;  the  permission,  as  a  compromise,  to  sacri- 
fice in  the  land ;  the  fact  that  they  could  not  do  this 
without  committing,  as  the  Egyptians  would  regard 
it,  sacrilege ;  that,  as  a  general  thing,  the  Hebrews 
had  fallen  in  with  the  idolatry  of  their  oppressors,  — 
which,  considering  their  strong  mutual  repellances, 
could  not  have  been,  had  they  not  been  deprived, 
by  the  strong  arm  of  power,  of  their  religious  oppor- 
tunities and  rights;  that  the  Sabbath  was  preem- 
inently the  "^^  feast"  of  the  Jews ;  that  Pharaoh  actually 
complains  that  Moses  and  Aaron  cause  the  people  to 
keep  Sabbath  from  their  burdens ;  and,  finally,  that 
Moses  informs  us  in  terms  that  God  brought  them 
up  out  of  Egypt,  because  be  had  commanded  them 
to  keep  Sabbath,  implying,  beyond  question,  that  they 
could  not  keep  it  there  ;  —  put  all  these  items  together, 
and  then  add  the  fact  that  the  first  religious  obser- 
vance, of  which  we  have  any  account  after  their 
deliverance,  is  that  of  the  Sabbath,  and  can  it  be 
believed  that  we  have  no  mention  of  a  Sabbath,  and 
no  complaint  of  encroachments  upon  it,  during  the 
period  of  Egyptian  bondage?  What,  indeed,  in  the 
light  of  these  facts,  is  that  whole  history  but  one  un- 
broken complaint?  And  what  was  the  "feast"  or 
season  of  sacrifice  and  worship,  so  loudly  demanded, 
but  that  very  season  whose  religious  observance  is  so 
early  mentioned  in  the  subsequent  history?  And 
that  season  was  the  Sabbath.  The  evidence  on  this 
point  will  accumulate  as  we  proceed. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  SABBATH  IN  THE  WILDERNESS. 

The  Sabbath,  it  is  said,  was  originally  given  in  the 
second  month  after  the  deliverance  from  Egypt,  in 
the  wilderness  of  Sin,  and  as  a  memorial  of  that  de- 
liverance. 

1.  The  only  proof  attempted  of  its  being  such  a 
memorial,  is  drawn  from  the  passage  (Deut.  v.  15) 
we  have  just  examined.  The  form  of  phraseology, 
"  Therefore  the  Lord  thy  God  commanded  thee  to 
keep  the  Sabbath-day,"  it  is  said,  proves  that  it  was 
instituted,  and  was  to  be  kept,  as  a  memorial  of  the 
deliverance  referred  to.  But,  as  we  have  seen,  the 
Hebrew  admits  ofj  and  the  connection  of  the  passage 
requires,  the  rendering,  ^^  because  that  the  Lord  thy 
God  had  commanded  thee  to  keep  the  Sabbath-day." 
This  rendering  makes  the  Sabbath,  as  previously 
existing,  a  reason  for  the  deliverance,  and  not  the 
deliverance  a  reason  for  its  institution.  That  this  is 
the  true  sense  of  the  passage,  and  that  the  Sabbath 
was  not  instituted  as  a  memorial  of  the  event  in 
question,  is  further  manifest, 

(1.)  From  the  fact,  that,  as  such  a  memorial,  it  has 
no  significancy.  Nothing  is  more  obvious  than  that 
in  all  the  memorials,  symbols,  types,  &c.,  of  the  old 
economy,  care  was  taken  to  have  the  sign  a  fit  em- 


58  THE    SABBATH 

blem  of  the  thing  signified.  There  was  always  a  fit- 
ness in  the  nature  of  the  one  to  that  of  the  other. 
Thus,  in  the  Sabbath  as  a  memorial  of  creation,  there 
is  a  fitness  in  the  memorial  to  the  thing  memorial- 
ized. But  as  a  memorial  of  deliverance  from  Egypt, 
what  is  there  in  the  sign  to  represent  the  thing  sig- 
nified? They  were  not  delivered  on  the  seventh 
day  of  the  week ;  at  least  there  is  no  evidence  of 
it  Nor  w^ere  they  brought  out  by  virtue  of  seven 
plagues;  for  there  were  ten  of  them.  Nor  was 
there  any  thing  in  the  event  itself  to  make  the  reli- 
gious observance  of  each  seventh  day  an  appropriate 
and  fit  memorial  of  it.  As  such  memorial,  why,  then, 
should  it  recur  every  seventh  day?  Why  not  have 
it  every  tenth,  according  to  the  number  of  plagues? 
Or  every  seventieth  ?  Or  every  month  ?  Or,  as  it 
was  the  day  of  their  national  freedom,  why  not  have 
it,  like  our  own  anniversary  of  American  independ- 
ence, once  a  year,  and  on  the  day  and  month  of  their 
deliverance  ?  That  would  have  made  it  as  a  memo- 
rial, significant  of  the  event.  But  as  it  is,  it  has  no 
significancy  of  it  whatever. 

(2.)  To  suppose  it  such  a  memorial  involves  the 
Bible  in  irrecondlahle  cordradictioru  The  reason  given 
for  its  institution,  in  Ex.  xx.  11,  is,  "  For  in  six  days 
the  Lord  made  heaven  and  earth,  &c.,  and  rested  the 
seventh  day."  That  given  in  Ex.  xxxi.  17,  is  the  same. 
And  both  are  the  same  with  that  given  in  the  first 
mention  of  it,  in  Gen.  ii.  3.  Every  w±ere  the  reason 
is  the  same.  It  is  only  in  the  passage  under  con- 
sideration, that  a  different  reason  even  seems  to  be 
given.  What,  then,  is  the  inference  ?  That  the  Bible 
contradicts  itself —  assigning  two  diflTerent  reasons  for 


IN    THE    WILDERNESS.  59 

the  same  thing,  the  one  utterly  unlike,  and  twenty-five 
hundred  years  apart  from,  the  other  ?  Or,  that  the 
passage  in  question  is  to  be  understood  in  some  other 
sense ;  and  in  that  especially,  which,  while  it  makes 
the  Bible  consistent,  is  allowed  by  the  original,  and 
adds  force  and  beauty  to  the  connection  ?    But, 

(3.)  The  passover,  and  the  sanctiflcation,  or  setting 
apart  of  the  first-horn  of  man  and  beast  to  the  service 
of  the  altar  and  the  temple,  were  specially  instituted 
as  memorials  of  the  deliverance  in  question.  While 
yet  in  Egypt,  (Ex.  xii.  1 — ^27,)  God,  by  Moses  and 
Aai'on,  gave  to  the  Israelites  specific  direction  in  re- 
gard to  the  intent  of  the  passover,  the  manner  of 
keeping  it,  and  its  perpetual  observance  in  the  land  to 
which  he  was  about  to  bring  them.  Of  its  observance 
there  he  says,  (v.  14,)  "  This  day  shall  be  unto  you 
for  a  memorial;  and  ye  shall  keep  it  a  feast  to  the 
Lord  throughout  your  generations  ;  ye  shall  keep  it  a 
feast  by  an  ordinance  forever.  And  (vs.  2G,  27)  when 
your  children  shall  say  unto  you.  What  mean  ye  by 
this  service  ?  ye  shall  say,  It  is  the  sacrifice  of  the 
Lord's  passover,  who  passed  over  the  houses  of  the 
children  of  Israel  in  Egypt,  when  he  smote  the  Egyp- 
tians, and  delivered  our  houses."  After  their  de- 
parture, the  command  was,  (Ex.  xiii.  3,  8 — 10,)  "Re- 
member this  day  in  which  ye  came  out  of  Egypt,  out 
of  the  house  of  bondage.  And  (after  repeating  the 
directions  about  keeping  it)  thou  shalt  show  thy  son 
in  that  day,  saying.  This  is  done  because  of  that  which 
the  Lord  did  unto  me  when  I  came  forth  out  of 
Egypt  And  it  shall  be  for  a  sign  unto  thee  upon 
thine  hand,  and  for  a  memorial  between  thine  eyes ; 
that  the  Lord's  law  may  be  in  thy  mouth ;  for  with  a 


60  THE    SABBATH 

Strong  hand  hath  the  Lord  brought  thee  out  of  Egypt. 
Thou  shalt  therefore  keep  this  ordmance  m  his  season 
from  year  to  yearP  This  was  their  national  anniver- 
sary, commemorative,  hke  the  anniversaiy  of  Ameri- 
can independence,  of  their  national  deliverance. 

In  the  same  connection,  also,  God  said,  (Ex.  xiii.  2, 12,) 
"  Sanctify  unto  me  all  the  first-born,  whatsoever  open- 
eth  the  womb  among  the  children  of  Israel,  both  of 
man  and  of  beast :  it  is  mine;"  or,  (v.  12,)  "Set  them 
apart  to  the  Lord,  &c. ;  the  males  shall  be  the  Lord's  " 
—  the  beasts  (v.  13)  to  be  offered  in  sacrifice,  and  the 
men  to  be  redeemed.  "  And  (vs.  14 — 16)  it  shall  be, 
when  thy  son  asketh  thee  in  time  to  come,  saying. 
What  is  this  ?  that  thou  shalt  say  unto  him,  By  strength 
of  hand  the  Lord  brought  us  out  from  Egypt,  from 
the  house  of  bondage;  for  it  came  to  pass, .when 
Pharaoh  would  hardly  let  us  go,  that  the  Lord  slew 
all  the  first-born  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  both  the  first- 
born of  man,  and  the  first-born  of  beast :  therefore  I 
sacrifice  to  the  Lord  all  that  openeth  the  matrix,  being 
males,  (of  beasts;)  but  all  the  first-born  of  my  children 
I  redeem.  And  it  shall  be  for  a  tolijen  upon  thine 
hand,  and  for  frontlets  between  thine  eyes,  that  by 
strength  of  hand  the  Lord  brought  us  forth  out  of 
Egypt." 

Here,  then,  we  have  two  distinct  and  appropriate  in- 
stitutions —  the  one  to  be  observed  from  year  to  year 
as  a  great  national  religious  anniversary,  the  other 
entering  as  a  permanent  organic  arrangement  into 
their  religious  and  civil  polity,  and  both  standing  me- 
morials of  their  deliverance  from  Egypt.  In  these 
memorials,  moreover,  there  was  a  fitness  in  the  sign  to 
the  thing  signified.    Why,  then,  have  a  third  memorial 


IN    THE    WILDERNESS.  61 

of  the  same  event,  and  especially  one  destitute  of  all 
fitness  as  a  representative  of  the  thing  memorialized? 
Or,  if  a  third  vt^ere  to  be  had,  vrhy  not  institute  it  like 
the  others,  at  the  time  ?  Why  vv^ait  for  a  two 
months'  journey  into  the  wilderness  ?  Manifestly,  the 
Sabbath  was  not  instituted  as  a  memorial  of  deliver- 
ance from  Egypt 

2.  Nor  was  the  Sabbath  originally  instituted  in  the 
second  month  after  the  deliverance,  and  while  the 
Hebrews  were  in  the  wilderness  of  Sin.  That  it  was, 
is  argued  from  the  general  tenor  of  the  mention 
made  of  it  (Ex,  xvi.  23 — 30)  at  the  giving  of  manna; 
and  especially  from  the  fact,  that  it  is  said  to  have 
been  "  given,"  or  "  made  Jcnoivn,^^  then.  "  See,  (Ex. 
xvi.  29,)  for  that  the  Lord  hath  given  you  the  Sab- 
bath ; "  and,  (Ezek.  xx.  11,  12,)  "  I  gave  them  my  stat- 
utes, and  showed  them  my  judgments.  Moreover, 
also,  I  gave  them  my  Sabbaths ; "  and,  (Neh.  ix.  13, 
14,)  "Thou  gavest  them  commandments,  and  madest 
known  unto  them  thy  holy  Sabbath."  And  how,  it  is 
asked,  could  the  Sabbath  have  existed  before,  if  it 
were  "give/i,"  or  ^'made  known^'^  then? 

(1.)  This  argument  assumes  that  laws  and  institu- 
tions are  never  said  to  be  "  given,"  or  "  made  known^'* 
when  they  are  renewed,  but  only  when  they  are  first 
promulgated  or  established.  But  this  is  not  true.  For, 
among  the  statutes,  &c.,  which  God,  in  Ezekiel,  says 
he  gave  in  the  wilderness,  circumcision  was  obviously 
one.  Yet  that  existed  and  was  observed  before.  In- 
deed, Christ  (John  vii.  22)  says  in  terms  that  it  was 
given  then,  and  yet  did  exist  before  —  "  Moses  gave 
unto  you  circumcision,  not  that  it  is  of  Moses,  (ori- 
ginally,) but  of  the  fathers,"  This  settles  the  point, 
6 


62 


THE    SABBATH 


that  laws  and  institutions  are  sometimes  said  to  be 
given,  when  they  are  merely  reestabhshed,  or  incor- 
porated into  some  new  economy.  The  same  is  true 
of  the  phrase  "  madest  known,"  in  Nehemiah.  The 
term  in  the  original  is  the  same  with  that  translated 
"showed"  in  Ezekiel.  But  as  we  have  just  seen, 
circumcision  was  one  of  the  things  "showed,"  or 
"made  known,"  by  Moses  at  that  time.  Yet  the  law 
of  circumcision  was  not  then  first  promulgated.  So 
with  the  law  of  murder.  That  was  as  old  as  the 
flood.  "Whoso  (Gen.  ix.  6)  sheddeth  man's  blood, 
by  man  shall  his  blood  be  shed."  And  the  institu- 
tion of  marriage,  too,  was  as  old  as  creation.  Yet 
both  these  were  among  the  statutes  and  the  judg- 
ments of  the  Mosaic  economy.  This  is  conclusive, 
that  laws  and  institutions  are  said  to  be  "  givei^,"  or 
"made  kno%vn,"  when  they  are  only  reestablished,  or 
incorporated  into  some  new  economy,  as  well  as 
when  originally  promulgated.  And  this,  even  if  we 
could  not  explain  the  reason  or  propriety  of  the 
usage,  shows  conclusively  that  the  argument  from 
it  is  without  the  least  force.  But  we  can  explain  it. 
Nothing  is  easier  or  more  obvious.  There  are  two 
explanations,  either  of  which  is  satisfactory.  The 
Mosaic  economy  was  made  up  of  two  kinds  of  in- 
stitutions and  laws.  The  one  were  those  which  had 
existed  before ;  the  other,  those  which  were  given  by 
Moses  for  the  first  time.  Yet,  taken  together  as  a 
whole,  they  made  a  code,  or  an  economy,  which,  as  a 
whole,  was  new.  It  was  a  new  code  — it  was  a  new 
economy,  although  made  up  in  part  of  elements  that 
had  existed  before.  Speaking  of  them,  then,  as  a 
whole,  or  as  a  part  even  of  this  whole,  it  was  per- 


IN   THE    WILDERNESS.  63 

fectly  proper  and  natural  to  speak  of  them  as  ^^given,^ 
or  '''made  known,^''  at  the  time  when  the  new  code  or 
economy,  as  such,  was  promulgated  or  established. 

But  we  have  a  better  solution.  The  Sabbath,  with 
its  connected  observances,  was  subsequently,  we  find, 
the  distinguishing  badge,  or  "  sign,"  by  which  the  wor- 
shippers of  Jehovah  were  to  be  known  from  the 
worshippers  of  idols.  If  it  existed  before  the  bon- 
dage in  Egypt,  it  must  have  been  an  equally  distinctive 
badge;  and  therefore  the  institution  which  pagan 
oppressors  would  be  most  likely  to  invade,  or  take 
from  their  vassals.  Suppose,  then,  that  the  Hebrews 
were  robbed  of  their  Sabbath  in  Egypt,  and  with  it 
of  their  other  religious  privileges  and  rights ;  that,  as 
a  result,  they  had  generally  fallen  in  with  the  cuiTent 
idolatry ;  that,  by  such  degeneracy,  continued  through 
a  period  of  one  or  two  hundred  years,  they  had  for- 
gotten and  lost  the  regular  day  for  the  Sabbath,  or,  if 
not  this,  had  forgotten  the  proper  modes  of  sacrifice 
and  worship  upon  it  —  and  Moses  (Ex.  x.  26)  says, 
"For  we  know  not  with  what  we  must  serve  the 
Lord  until  we  come  thither  "  (into  the  wilderness)  — 
suppose  all  this;  and  now  God,  by  the  hand  of  Moses, 
brings  them  out,  and,  with  such  new  institutions  and 
laws  as  their  circumstances  demand,  gives  them  back 
the  old  ones  too,  and  makes  known  to  them  the  things 
they  had  forgotten ;  and  then  how  natural  and  impres- 
sive the  language,  "I  gave  them  my  Sabbaths"  — 
"Thou  gavest  them  commandments,  and  madest 
known  unto  them  thy  holy  Sabbath"!  Could  any 
thing  be  more  so  ?     But, 

(2.)  If  the  Sabbath  were  originally  given  at  the  giv- 
ing of  manna,  (Ex.  xvi.  23 — ^29,)  how  marvellous  the 


64  THE    SABBATH 

difference  in  the  first  account  of  its  original  institu- 
tion and  that  of  the  passover  and  the  sanctification 
of  the  fii'st-born !  In  the  first  mention  of  the  original 
institution  of  the  two  latter,  (Ex.  xii.  1 — ^27,  and  xiii. 
1 — 16,)  we  have  a  minute  and  specific  detail  of  the 
time,  occasion,  and  reason  or  design  of  their  institu- 
tion. We  should  expect  a  similar  record  of  the  origi- 
nal institution  of  the  Sabbath.  On  the  supposition 
of  its  institution  at  creation,  we  have  such  record  in 
Gen.  ii.  2,  3.  On  the  supposition  of  its  institution  in 
the  wilderness,  we  ought  to  have  a  similar  record. 
But  we  have  not  Though,  on  this  supposition,  in- 
stituted nearly  at  the  same  time,  and  for  precisely  the 
same  reasons,  with  the  passover  and  the  sanctification 
of  the  first-bom,  the  first  record  of  it  says  not  one 
word  of  the  time,  or  the  occasion,  or  the  reasons  of 
it,  nor  indeed  of  the  proper  modes  of  its  observance. 
The  record  is  full  and  minute,  on  these  points,  in  re- 
gard to  the  other  institutions.  Why  is  it  not  equally 
so  in  reference  to  this  ?  Nay,  in  reference  to  them, 
the  entire  structure  of  the  language  is  that  of  appoint- 
ment and  command.  It  is  throughout  "thou  shalt," 
"  ye  shall,"  "  they  shall,"  do  this  or  that,  and  it  "  shall  be 
a  memorial "  of  this  or  that.  But  there  is  not  a  word 
of  this  in  the  supposed  first  record  (Ex.  xvi.  23 — ^29) 
of  the  Sabbath.  The  structure  here  is,  "  To-moiTow 
ij  "  —  not  shall  be  —  "the  rest  of  the  holy  Sabbath  unto 
the  Lord."  Why  the  difference,  except  on  the  sup- 
position, that  the  mention  of  the  Sabbath  in  this  case, 
so  far  from  being  that  of  its  original  institution,  was  a 
mere  incidental  mention  of  it,  as  of  an  institution 
already  existing  and  observed,  and  now  particularly 
spoken  of  in  consequence  of  the  manna's  not  falling 


IN    THE    WILDERNESS. 


I^i' 


upon  that  day,  and  as  the  reason  of  its  not  falling*^ 
then?  —  as  if  the  historian  would  say,  (Ex.  xvi.  26,) 
«  On  six  days  of  the  week  the  manna  shall  fall,  and  ye 
shall  gather  it ;  but  on  the  seventh  day  of  the  week, 
which,  as  an  existing  and  previous  fact,  is  the  Sab- 
bath, there  shall  be  none."  Such  a  view  accounts 
for  the  difference  in  these  records  of  the  Sabbath,  the 
passover,  and  the  sanctification  of  the  first-born.  In 
the  light  of  it,  we  can  readily  see  why  it  is,  that  in 
the  one  case,  there  is  great  minuteness  of  specifica- 
tion and  detail,  and  the  language  of  appointment  and 
command,  while  in  the  other  there  is  nothing  of  the 
kind.  The  one  is  the  record  of  the  original  estab- 
lishment of  new  institutions ;  the  other,  an  incidental 
mention  of  an  old  one. 

(3.)  The  circumstances  of  the  case,  and  the  general 
connection  and  obvious  import  of  the  passage  in  ques- 
tion, are  decisive  of  the  correctness  of  this  view. 
This  will  be  obvious  from  a  familiar  paraphrase  or 
running  comment.  The  people  (v.  2)  murmur  for 
bread.  To  supply  them,  God  says,  (v.  4,)  "Behold,  I 
will  rain  bread  from  heaven  for  you,  and  the  people 
shall  go  out  and  gather  a  certain  rate  every  day  "  of 
the  week,  the  Sabbath  excepted,  "  that  I  may  prove 
them,  whether  they  will  walk  in  my  law  or  no.  For 
(v.  5)  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  on  the  sixth  day  "  of 
the  week  "they  shall  prepare  that  which  they  bring 
in  ;  and  it  shall  be  twice  as  much  as  they  gather 
daily,"  or  "on  other  days,"  so  that  they  shall  have 
nothing  to  prevent  their  resting  and  worshipping  me 
on  the  Sabbath,  and  I  may  thus  be  able  to  prove 
them,  to  see  whether  they  will  walk  in  my  law  or  no. 
The  manna  fell,  and  the  people  gathered  it  as  di- 
6* 


66  THE    SABBATH 

rected.  Some,  in  their  anxiety  for  the  future,  kept 
some  of  it  (v.  20)  "until  the"  next  "  morning,  and  it 
bred  worms  and  stank ;  and  Moses  was  wroth "  at 
their  want  of  confidence  in  God.  Nevertheless,  the 
manna  continued  to  fall,  "and  (v.  21)  they  gathered 
it  every  morning"  of  the  week,  "every  man  accord- 
ing to  his  eating ;  and  when  the  sun  waxed  hot  it 
melted,"  so  that  there  was  none  to  be  gathered  after 
that,  until  the  next  morning.  "And  (v.  22)  it  came  to 
pass,  that  on  the  sixtii  day"  of  the  week,  as  God 
had  said,  "they  gathered  twice  as  much  bread,  two 
omers  for  one  man;  and,"  as  God,  by  Moses,  had 
told  them  (v.  5)  "  to  prepare "  this,  so  that  it  would 
keep  for  the  next  day,  "all  the  rulers  of  the  congre- 
gation came  and  told  Moses,"  that  he  might  tell  them, 
and  they  the  people,  how  to  prepare  it.  And  there 
was  the  more  need  of  this,  inasmuch  as  some  had 
tried  to  keep  it  over  to  the  next  morning  during  the 
previous  week,  and,  instead  of  keeping,  it  had  only 
"  bred  worms  and  stank."  And  Moses  (v.  23)  "  said 
unto  them,  This  is  what  the  Lord  hath  said,"  viz. 
that  (v.  5)  on  the  sixth  day  of  the  week  they  shall  pre- 
pare what  they  bring  in;  and  it  shall  be  twice  as 
much  as  they  gather  on  other  days.  "  To-morrow," 
as  you  are  aware,  "  is  the  rest  of  the  holy  Sabbath 
unto  the  Lord."  That  you  may  be  able  to  keep 
it,  you  may  prepare  your  food  by  baking  or  seething, 
just  as  you  choose.  Prepai'ed  either  way,  it  will 
keep.  Therefore,  "bake  that  which  ye  will  bake, 
and  seethe  that  ye  will  seethe,"  and  eat  what  you 
wish  of  it  to-day,  "  and  that  which  remaineth  over  lay 
up  for  you,  to  be  kept  until  the  morning."  And  they 
did  so,  (v.  24,)  "and  it  did  not  stink,  neither  was  there 


IN    THE    WILDERNESS.  67 

any  worm  therein,"  as  there  was  before.  "And," 
(v.  25,)  when  the  Sabbath  had  come,  "  Moses  said,  Eat 
that  to-day,  for  to-day  is"  —  not  shall  be  —  "a  Sab- 
bath "  or  holy  rest  "  unto  the  Lord :  to-day  ye  shall  not 
find  it  in  the  field.  Six  days  "  of  the  week  (v.  26)  "ye 
shall  gather  it,  but  on  the  seventh  day  "  of  the  week, 
"the  Sabbath,  in  it,"  because  it  is  the  Sabbath,  and 
that  you  may  have  nothing  to  hinder  you  from  keep- 
ing it,  "there  shall  be  none.  And,"  (v.  27,)  yet  after 
all  this,  "  there  went  out  some  of  the  people  on  the 
seventh  day  for  to  gather,  but  they  found  none. 
And  the  Lord  "  (v.  28)  was  grieved  at  their  disobe- 
dience, and  "  said  unto  Moses,  How  long  refuse  ye 
to  keep  my  commandments  and  my  laws  ? "  Just 
think  what  I  have  done  that  you  might  have  the  Sab- 
bath back  agam,  and  have  nothing  to  prevent  your 
keeping  it.  When  you  could  not  keep  it  in  Egypt 
because  of  your  oppressors,  I  brought  you  out  thence  ; 
and  now,  that  you  may  have  nothing  to  prevent  your 
keeping  it  here,  I  give  you,  on  the  sixth  day  of  the 
week,  the  food  of  two  days.  "  See,  (v.  29,)  for  that  the 
Lord  hath  given  you  "  back  "  the  Sabbath,  therefore," 
because  he  has  done  it,  and  that  you  may  keep  it, "  he 
giveth  you  on  the  sixth  day  "  of  the  week  "  the  bread 
of  two  days."  Why,  then,  should  ye  not  keep  it?  Why 
not  spend  it  in  the  worship  and  sei-vice  of  the  Lord 
your  God  ?  "  Abide  ye  every  man  in  his  place :  let 
no  man  go  out  of  his  place  on  the  seventh  day.  So 
(v.  30)  the  people  rested  on  the  seventh  day."  Can 
it  be  doubted  that  this  is  an  incidental  mention  of  an 
institution  already  existing,  and  not  the  record  of  its 
original  establishment?  Can  it  be  doubted,  either, 
that  the  restoration  of  this  to  an  oppressed  people, 


DO  THE    SABBATH 

with  its  accompanying  privileges  and  rights,  as  an 
ancient  institution  of  their  ancient  faith,  was  one 
grand  object  of  their  dehverance  ? 

Finally,  if  the  Sabbath  were  originally  instituted  in 
the  wilderness,  and  as  a  memorial  of  deliverance  from 
Egypt,  why  should  it  be  incorporated  into  the  decalogue, 
rather  than  the  law  of  the  passover,  or  that  of  the 
sanctification  of  the  first-born  ?  The  decalogue,  with 
the  exception  of  the  law  of  the  Sabbath,  is  confess- 
edly made  up  of  those  laws  whose  obligation  is 
founded  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  is  unchanging 
and  perpetual  in  its  character,  and  common  to  man 
in  every  age  and  every  nation.  It  is,  in  one  word, 
a  summanj  of  the  COMMON  LAW  OF  THE  WORLD 
—  of  that  common  law,  which  exists  prior  to,  is  inde- 
pendent of,  and  yet  enters  naturally  and  necessarily 
as  FUNDAMENTAL  LAW,  into  every  well-ordered 
ecclesiastical  and  civil  polity.  This,  confessedly,  is  true 
of  the  decalogue,  with  the  single  exception  of  the  law 
of  the  Sabbath.  Here,  then,  according  to  the  supposi- 
tion before  us,  are  three  institutions,  established  about 
the  same  time,  commemorative  of  the  same  event,  and 
equally  limited  in  their  existence,  obligation,  and  de- 
sign, to  the  Jewish  economy.  Why  should  the  law  of 
one  of  them  go  in  as  part  and  parcel  of  the  common 
law  of  mankind,  rather  than  that  of  either  of  the  others  ? 
Or,  if  a  selection  must  be  made,  why  should  it  fall  upon 
the  Sabbath  ?  The  passover,  as  a  sign  or  memorial, 
was  most  impressively  significant  of  the  thing  signified. 
The  Sabbath,  as  we  have  seen,  has  no  such  signifi- 
cancy  whatever.  Why,  then,  should  it  take  prece- 
dence of  the  passover?  The  sanctification  of  the  first- 
born was  also  equally  significant,  and  in  addition  to 


IN    THE    WILDERNESS.  69 

this,  entered,  if  not  as  fundamental,  yet  as  permanent, 
organic  law,  into  the  entke  Jewitsh  polity.  As  such 
law  it  was  to  live  as  long  as  the  polity  itself.  Why, 
then,  should  the  Sabbath  take  precedence  of  it  ?  There 
is  but  one  answer.  The  Sabbath  was  not  originally 
instituted  in  the  wilderness,  nor  as  a  memorial  of  de- 
liverance from  Egypt,  nor  as  limited  to  the  Jewish 
economy.  Like  the  marriage  institution,  it  had  its 
being  at  creation.  It  was  made  for  man  —  the  race. 
It  grew  naturally  and  necessarily  out  of  his  nature, 
necessities,  and  relations.  It  existed  prior  to  and  in- 
dependent of  the  Jewish  and  every  other  individual  and 
limited  economy.  As  an  institution,  it  began,  like  that 
of  marriage,  with  the  race ;  was  made  for  the  race, 
and  was  designed  to  live  while  the  race  should,  and 
to  go  down  through  economy  after  economy,  until  the 
last  economy  should  crumble  to  pieces,  and  time  give 
place  to  eternity.  Of  course  the  law  of  its  observance, 
"Remember  the  Sabbath  to  keep  it  holy,"  was  to 
it  just  what  the  lav/  of  the  marriage  institution, 
«  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery,"  was  to  it.  As  the 
latter,  whether  written  by  the  finger  of  God  on  tables 
of  stone,  or  in  the  deep  foundations  of  the  nature, 
necessities,  and  relations  of  man,  was  a  part  of  uni- 
versal common  law,  and  therefore  included  in  God's 
summary  of  that  law,  so  it  was  with  the  former.  That 
was  as  truly  a  part  of  the  common  law  of  the  race  as 
was  the  law  of  marriage,  and,  being  so  in  fact,  was  of 
course  incorporated  inform  into  God's  summaiy  of  it. 
No  other  supposition  can  explain  the  precedence  of 
the  law  of  the  Sabbath,  in  respect  to  its  insertion  in 
the  decalogue,  over  that  of  the  passover,  or  the  sanc- 
tification  of  the  first-born.    The  one  was  a  part  of 


70  THE    SABBATH 

universal  common  law  —  going,  therefore,  as  funda- 
mental law,  into  all  well-ordered  economies.  The 
others  were  but  a  part  of  the  statute  law  of  that  par- 
ticular economy.  The  one,  therefore,  because  it  was 
a  part  of  it,  went  into  God's  summary  of  the  common 
law  of  man.  The  others,  because  they  were  not  a 
part  of  it,  did  not  go  into  it.  What  other  solution 
can  be  given  of  the  fact  in  question  ?  And  this  being 
given,  how  clear  is  it  that  the  law  of  the  Sabbath,  like 
the  laws  of  marriage,  property,  and  life,  is  universally 
and  perpetually  binding ! 

Objection.  But  it  is  said,  that "  where  Moses  rehears- 
es the  commandments,  (the  fourth  among  the  rest,)  he 
says,  (Deut.  v.  3,) '  The  Lord  made  not  this  covenant 
with  our  fathers,  but  with  us,  even  us,  who  are  all  of 
us  here  alive  this  day,' "  *  And  the  inference  is,  that 
the  Sabbath  was  not  instituted  at  the  creation,  nor  for 
all  men,  but  in  the  wilderness,  and  for  the  Jew  only, 
and  of  course  is  not  obligatory  on  the  Christian. 

Answer.  The  covenant  here  spoken  of  included  the 
whole  decalogue.  This  is  admitted.  Whatever,  then, 
the  declaration,  that  it  was  not  made  with  the  fathers, 
proves  in  respect  to  one  part  of  it,  as,  for  instance,  the 
law  of  the  Sabbath,  it  equally  proves  in  respect  to 
every  part.  If  it  prove  that  the  patriarchs  had  no 
Sabbath,  and  that  the  law  of  its  observance  was  not 
binding  on  them,  it  proves  equally  that  they  had  no 
God,  and  that  the  law  of  his  worship  was  not  binding ; 
that  they  had  no  marriage  institution,  with  its  filial 
and  conjugal  relations,  and  that  the  laws  of  their 
observance,    "Honor   thy  father  and  thy   mother," 

*  Grew,  on  the  Sabbath,  p.  5. 


IN    THE    WILDERNESS.  71 

"Thou  shaltnot  commit  adultery,"  were  not  binding; 
and  so  of  the  whole  decalogue,  the  law  of  property, 
"  Thou  shalt  not  steal,"  and  that  of  life,  "  Thou  shalt 
not  kill,"  not  excepted.  In  the  same  manner,  if  the 
declaration  in  question  prove  that  there  is  no  Sabbath 
under  the  Christian  dispensation,  and  that  the  law  of 
its  observance  is  not  binding  on  those  that  live  under 
it,  with  equal  certainty  does  it  prove  that  Christianity 
is  a  universal  exemption  from  every  obligation  of  tlie 
decalogue,  and  an  entire  extinction  of  every  institution 
and  every  right  guarded  by  it — -the  institution  of 
marriage  and  the  rights  of  conscience,  property,  and 
life,  not  excepted.  And  is  it  so  ?  Were  the  patriarchs 
at  liberty  to  worship  God  or  not,  to  honor  their  pa- 
rents or  not,  to  commit  adultery,  lie,  steal,  and  kill,  or 
not,  as  they  might  choose,  and  with  perfect  impunity  ? 
And  is  this  the  glorious  liberty  wherewith  Christ 
maketh  free  ?     No  one  pretends  it. 

But  it  is  said,  the  institutions  and  rights  guarded  iu 
the  decalogue,  with  the  laws  of  their  observance,  are, 
in  their  nature,  of  universal  and  unchanging  obliga- 
tion, and  of  course  are  binding  on  all  men,  in  every 
age,  and  under  every  dispensation.  Admit  it;  and 
how  does  it  appear  that  the  Sabbath,  with  the  law  of 
its  observance,  is  not  equally  so  ?  At  all  events,  the 
declaration  that  "  God  made  not  this  covenant  with 
the  fathers "  does  not  prove  it  otherwise.  It  proves 
no  more  of  the  law  of  the  Sabbath  than  of  every  other 
law  in  the  decalogue.  If,  therefore,  the  law  of  the 
marriage  institution,  "Thou  shalt  not  commit  adul- 
tery," is,  in  its  nature,  of  universal  and  unchanging  ob- 
ligation, equally  so,  for  aught  that  this  passage  proves, 
is  the  law  of  the  Sabbath.    And  the  same  is  true  of 


72     THE  SABBATH  IN  THE  WILDERNESS. 

every  command  of  the  decalogue.  All  are  equally 
pai'ts  of  the  covenant  in  question.  If  all  the  others, 
then,  be  of  universal  and  unchanging  obligation,  and, 
as  such,  binding  on  all  men,  in  all  ages,  and  under 
every  dispensation,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the 
covenant,  of  which  they  are  a  part,  was  not  made  with 
the  fathers,  why  is  not  the  law  of  the  Sabbath  equally 
so  ?  Tiieir  association  together  in  the  same  covenant 
surely  argues  them  alike  rather  than  unlike.  At  all 
events,  if  the  one  be  purely  Jewish,  and  the  others  not 
so,  the  proof  lies  elsewhere,  not  in  this  passage.  This 
proves  nothing  either  way  ;  or,  if  any  thing,  it  proves 
only  that  the  law  of  the  Sabbath,  like  every  other 
commandment  of  the  decalogue,  is  of  universal  and 
ceaseless  obligation^ 


CHAPTER   VII. 

THE  SABBATH   A  SIGN. 

It  is  said,  "  God  gave  the  Sabbath  as  a  distinctive 
sign  to  the  Israelites  —  a  sign,  that,  for  purposes  of 
infinite  wisdom,  he  had  chosen  them  as  a  peculiar 
people,  and  separated  them  from  the  nations  of  the 
earth.  How  could  the  Sabbath  have  been  such  a  dis- 
tinctive sign,  if  it  had  been  given  to  all  nations  ?  "  * 
The  fact  here  asserted,  and  in  the  sense  asserted,  is 
supposed  to  be  taught  in  Ex.  xxxi.  13 — 17,  and  Ezek. 
XX.  12,  20. 

Admitting,  for  the  moment,  the  correctness  of  this 
interpretation,  I  ask, 

1.  When  were  the  Israelites,  as  a  nation,  so  chosen 
and  separated  ?  Not  at  the  time  of  their  deliverance 
from  Egypt,  obviously ;  nor  at  any  subsequent  period. 
They  were  delivered  because  they  were  God's  chosen 
people  already,  not  that  they  miglit  afterwards  become 
so.  The  truth  is,  they  were  originally  chosen  as  God's 
peculiar  people  in  the  person  of  Abraham,  their  great 
progenitor.  The  Lord  (Gen.  xii.  1 — 3)  said  to 
Abram,  "  Get  thee  out  of  thy  country,  and  from  thy 
kindred,  and  from  thy  father's  house,"  (that  was  the 
commencement  of  the  separation  from  the  other  na- 
tions,) "unto  a  land  that  I  will  show  thee  ;  and  I  will 

*  GreW;  on  the  Sabbath,  p.  5. 
7 


74 


THE    SABBATH 


make  of  thee  a  great  nation,  and  I  will  bless  thee,  and 
make  thy  name  great."  And  afterwards,  when  he  en- 
tered more  formally  into  special  covenant  with  him, 
he  said,  (Gen.  xv.  13—16,)  "Know  of  a  surety  that  thy 
seed  shall  be  a  stranger  m  a  land  that  is  not  theirs, 
and  shall  serve  them  ;  and  they  shall  afflict  them  four 
hundred  years :  and  also  that  nation  whom  they  shall 
sei*ve  will  I  judge ;  and  afterward  shall  they  come  out 
with  great  substance."  Nor  were  this  selection  and 
covenant  ever  lost  sight  of  through  the  whole  line  of 
the  patriarclis  and  their  posterity,  from  Abraham  to 
Moses.  They  were  repeatedly  renewed  to  Isaac  and 
to  Jacob,  as  the  heads  and  representatives  of  their 
posterity.  And  Joseph,  the  last  of  the  patriarchal  line 
of  whom  we  have  any  account  previous  to  Moses, 
when  he  was  about  to  die,  said  (Gen.  1.  24)  to  his 
brethren,  "I  die ;  but  God  will  surely  visit  you,  and 
bring  you  out  of  this  land  unto  the  land  which  he 
sware  to  Abraham,  to  Isaac,  and  to  Jacob."  Accord- 
ingly when,  after  his  death,  (Ex.  i.  8,  13,  14,)  "  there 
arose  a  new  king  in  Egypt,  which  knew  not  Joseph," 
and  "  the  Egyptians  made  the  children  of  Israel  to 
serve  with  rigor,  and  made  their  lives  bitter  with  hard 
bondage,"  so  that  (Ex.  ii.  23,)  "  the  children  of  Israel 
sighed  by  reason  of  the  bondage,"  then,  we  ai'e  in- 
formed, (Ex.  ii.  24,  25,)  "  God  heard  their  groaning, 
and  God  remembered  his  COVENANT  with  Mraham, 
with  Isaac,  and  with  Jacob,  And  God  looked  upon  the 
children  of  Israel,  and  God  had  respect  unto  them." 
And  when  he  first  summoned  Moses  to  the  work  of 
their  deliverance,  (Ex.  iii.  6,  10,)  the  language  was, 
"  I  am  the  God  of  thy  father,  the  God  of  Abraham,  the 
God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob :  I  have  seen  the 


A    SIGN,  75 

afliiction  of  my  people,  and  I  am  come  down  to  de- 
liver them.  Come  now,  therefore,  and  I  will  send  thee 
unto  Pharaoh,  that  thou  mayest  bring  forth  my  peo- 
ple, the  children  of  Israel,  out  of  Egypt."  And  when 
Moses  first  approached  Pharaoh,  (Ex.  iv.  22,  23,)  he 
was  directed  to  say,  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  Israel  is  " 
(not  is  to  be)  "m?/  son,  even  my  first-born;  and  I 
say  unto  thee.  Let  my  son  go,  that  he  may  sei've  me." 
They  were  therefore  his  people  —  his  son,  even  his 
first-born,  before  their  deliverance  from  Egypt,  They 
had  then,  as  truly  as  afterwards,  their  distinctive  na- 
tional existence,  as  his  chosen  people ;  and  it  was  be- 
cause they  had,  and  because  he  remembered  his  cove- 
nant with  them  as  such,  that  he  came  down  to  deliver. 
And  that  whole  interposition  in  their  behalf  was,  not 
their  original  selection  as  his  peculiar  people,  but  only 
their  re-selection,  accomplished  by  the  fulfilment  of 
qovenant  engagements  growing  out  of  their  original  se- 
lection more  than  six  hundred  years  before.  For  hun- 
dreds of  years,  then,  they  had  been  God's  chosen  people. 
As  such,  they  had  had  a  distinctive  tribual  or  national 
existence.  And  can  it  be,  that  during  all  this  period  they 
were  without  the  great  distinctive  sign  of  that  exist- 
ence ?  If  they  had  no  Sabbath,  and  the  Sabbath  were 
that  sign,  as  alleged,  they  were  without  it.  So  that, 
on  this  supposition,  they  had  their  distinctive  existence 
as  God's  chosen  people,  but  had  no  distinctive  sign  or 
badge  of  it  until  some  centuries  after  that  existence 
began  1  And  can  that  be  ?  By  no  means.  Either  they 
had  the  Sabbath  before,  or  it  was  not  a  distinctive  sign 
of  their  distinctive  existence  as  God's  chosen  people. 
But  it  was  such  sign.  They  had  the  Sabbath,  then, 
irom  the  begmning.    This  conclusion  is  unavoidable. 


76  THE   SABBATH 

To  talk  of  a  sign  instituted  five  hundred  years  or  more 
after  the  commencement  of  the  thing  signified,  is  ab- 
surd.   Besides, 

2.  What  were  those  ^purposes  of  infinite  loisdom,^^ 
on  account  of  which  the  selection  and  separation  in 
question  were  made  ?  The  great  purpose,  as  every 
one  knows,  —  that  which  overshadowed  and  included 
every  other,  —  was  to  preserve  and  perpetuate  among 
men  the  knowledge  and  worship  of  Jehovah  as  the 
true  God,  in  distinction  from  all  idol  gods ;  and  thus 
to  prepare  the  way  for  the  coming  and  kingdom  of 
Messiah.  It  was,  that,  amid  the  wide-spread  and  uni- 
versal prevalence  of  idolatry  among  the  nations,  there 
might  be  one  nation  of  worshippers  of  the  true  God, 
out  of  which,  in  the  fulness  of  time,  he  should  come, 
who  was  to  ransom  man,  and  be  the  Desire  of  all  na- 
tions. If,  then,  the  Sabbath  were  given  to  the  Hebi-ews 
as  a  distinctive  sign  of  their  selection  and  separation  by 
God  from  other  nations,  it  could  be  such  a  sign,  only, 
as  it  served  to  mark  them  as  the  behevers  in  and  wor- 
shippers of  Jehovah  as  the  true  God,  in  distinction 
from  the  worshippers  of  idol  gods.  It  must  have  been 
such  a  thing,  in  its  origin,  nature,  or  design,  that  the 
Hebrews,  in  observing  it,  would,  by  that  act,  profess 
themselves  believers  in  and  worshippers  of  him,  as  the 
only  true  God ;  so  that  its  observance,  in  the  very  act 
of  it,  should  be  the  great  distinctive  badge  of  tlieir  re- 
ligious profession,  and  a  constant  and  impressive  me- 
mento that  Jehovah,  not  any  idol,  was  the  God  who 
sanctified  or  set  them  apart  to  his  service.  There  must 
also  have  been  something  about  it  so  unique  in  its 
character,  and  so  unlike  every  other  institution  and 
ordinance,  that  its  observance  would  say,  Jehovah  is 


A    SIGN.  77 

the  only  true  God,  and  we  believe  in  and  worship  him 
accordingly,  more  significantly  and  impressively  than 
it  could  be  said  by  the  observance  of  any  other.  How 
else  could  it  be  the  great  distinctive  sign  of  their  great 
distinctive  national  peculiarity  ?  How  else  become  the 
distinctive  badge  of  their  distinctive  religious  profes- 
sion as  the  worshippers  of  Jehovah  ^ 

Now,  as  a  memorial  of  deliverance  from  Egypt, 
what  was  there  in  the  Sabbath  to  make  it,  rather  than 
any  other  ordinance  or  institution,  such  a  distinguish- 
ing badge  ?  The  passover  and  the  sanctification  of  the 
first-born  were  memorials  of  the  same  event,  and,  as 
signs,  far  more  significant  of  the  thing  signified.  To 
observe  the  Sabbath,  then,  as  a  memorial  of  this  event, 
would  not  say,  Jehovah  is  the  only  true  God,  and  we 
believe  in  and  serve  him  as  such,  any  more  significantly 
than  to  have  observed  either  of  these  other  institutions. 
Their  observance  would  have  been  just  as  distinctive 
a  badge  of  their  belief  in  and  worship  of  Jehovah,  as 
the  only  true  God,  as  was  that  of  the  Sabbath.  Why, 
then,  should  the  Sabbath  have  the  precedence  ?  On 
this  supposition,  it  should  not  have.  But  change  the 
supposition  —  admit  that  the  Sabbath  was  instituted  at 
creation  as  a  standing  memorial  of  the  fact,  that  in  six 
days  Jehovah  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  and 
rested  on  the  seventh  day,  and  then  the  regular  ob- 
servance of  it  by  the  Hebrews  was  a  weekly  national 
testimony,  that  the  world  was  not  made  by  the  gods 
and  according  to  the  theories  of  paganism,  but  by  Je- 
hovah, and  in  six  days,  and  that  he,  therefore,  is  the 
only  living  and  true  God.  Such  an  institution,  hold- 
ing forth  in  its  regular  observance  such  a  testimony, 
was,  therefore,  the  institution  best  fitted,  of  all  others, 


78  THE    SABBATH 

to  be  the  great  distinctive  sign  or  badge  of  their  great 
distinctive  peculiarity  as  the  chosen  people  of  God.  Its 
observance,  in  this  view  of  it,  would  most  significantly 
mark  them  as  the  worshippers  of  Jehovah,  and  dis- 
tinguish and  keep  them  separate  from  the  idolatrous 
nations  around  them,  and  thus  be  a  sign  forever  of  the 
covenant  between  them  and  their  God.    And, 

3.  This,  indeed,  is  the  true  import  of  the  passage  (Ex. 
xxxi.  13 — 17)  under  consideration.  The  connection 
of  the  passage  is  this :  God  had  given  certain  direc- 
tions in  regard  to  building  the  tabernacle.  Then,  lest 
they  should  encroach  on  the  Sabbath  in  doing  it,  he 
adds,  "Verily"  (Hebrew,  JVeverthdess)  "my  Sabbaths 
shall  ye  keep;"  and  the  reason  assigned  for  it  is,  in 
the  Hebrew,  literally  this :  "  For  it  is  a  sign  between 
me  and  you  throughout  your  generations,  for  to  make 
it  known"  (nj;'l'7,  ladaat), "  that  I,  Jehovah,  am  he  that 
sanctifies  you."  As  a  whole,  then,  the  passage  is  as 
if  God  had  said,  "You  are  about  to  be  employed  in 
an  important  and  sacred  work,  one  requiring  close 
attention  and  great  despatch ;  nevertheless,  be  care- 
ful not  to  encroach  on  holy  time.  Let  the  business, 
urgent  as  it  is,  cease  during  the  hallowed  hours  of  the 
Sabbath ;  for  the  Sabbath  is  a  sign  between  me  and 
you  throughout  your  generations,  by  the  keeping  of 
which  it  is  to  be  known  that  I,  Jehovah,  am  the  God 
that  sanctifies  or  sets  you  apart  as  mine."  Such  is 
the  obvious  and  true  import  of  the  passage.  And  this 
import  gives  us  the  Sabbath  as  that  sign,  whose  ob- 
servance was  to  tell  the  world  who  and  what  their  God 
was.  Its  observance  was,  therefore,  the  public  profes- 
sion of  their  religious  faith  —  a  public  avowal  that  they 
were  not  idolaters,  but  the  worshippers  of  Jehovah.   Of 


A    SIGN.  i9 

course,  apostasy  from  the  sign  was,  practically,  and  in 
effect,  apostasy  from  the  thing  signified.  It  was  prac- 
tically a  renunciation  of  their  religious  faith,  and  apos- 
tasy from  their  God.  Of  course,  it  was  substantial 
idolatry,  and,  as  such,  a  treasonable  offence,  punish- 
able with  death. 

Moreover,  on  examining  the  passage  further,  we 
find,  (v.  16,)  that  the  children  of  Israel  were  "to  ob- 
serve the  Sabbath  throughout  their  generations  as  a 
perpetual  covenant,"  or  standing  ordinance  ;  that  so 
observed,  (v.  17,)  it  was  a  sign  between  Jehovah  and 
them  forever ;  and  finally,  we  learn  what  that  was  in 
the  Sabbath,  which  made  it  such  a  sign,  rather  than 
any  other  ordinance.  It  was  not,  that  God,  without 
any  fitness  in  the  thing  itself,  had  arbitrarily  fixed  it 
BO  ;  nor  that  God  had  brought  them  out  of  Egypt. 
Not  a  word  do  we  hear  of  any  such  reason.  But  "It 
is  a  sign  between  me  and  the  children  of  Israel  for- 
ever." Why  ?  What  makes  it  so  ?  "  For  in  six  days 
the  Lord  made  heaven  and  earth,  and  on  the  seventh 
day  he  rested,  and  was  refreshed."  Here,  then,  we 
have  it  in  distinct  terms  that  it  was  the  connection  of 
the  Sabbath  with  the  creation,  that  made  it,  rather  than 
the  passover,  or  any  other  ordinance,  the  sign  in  ques- 
tion. What  that  connection  was  we  have  already  seen. 
Jehovah  made  the  world  in  six  days,  and  rested  on  the 
seventh,  and  set  apart  the  seventh  to  be  observed  as  a 
perpetual  memorial  of  what  he  had  done.  As  such 
memorial,  every  individual  who  kept  it,  thereby  de- 
clared his  belief,  that  the  world  was  not  made  by  the 
gods,  and  according  to  the  theories  of  paganism,  but 
by  Jehovah ;  and  that  he,  therefore,  not  they,  was  the 
real  Creator,  and  of  course  the  only  living  and  true 


80  THE    SABBATH 

God.  A  memorial,  holding  forth  such  a  testimony  in 
its  observance,  was,  in  its  very  nature,  a  distinctive 
sign  or  badge  of  the  worshippers  of  Jehovah.  They 
could  not  keep  it  without  thereby  marking  themselves 
as  worshippers  of  him,  and  not  of  idols.  They  could 
not  neglect  or  refuse  to  keep  it  without  losing  their 
distinctive  badge,  and  becoming  so  far  identified  with 
idolaters.  It  was  preeminently  the  badge  of  their 
religious  faith.  To  observe  it,  was  to  profess  faith  in 
Jehovah  as  the  only  true  God.  Not  to  observe  it,  was 
to  say,  Jehovah  is  not  the  only  true  God,  and  was  tan- 
tamount to  apostasy  or  idolatry ;  and  as  that  govern- 
ment was  a  theocracy,  such  apostasy  or  idolatry  was 
virtual  high-treason.  No  wonder,  then,  that  God  se- 
lected this  as  the  sign,  rather  than  some  other  ordi- 
nance, and  then  placed  such  an  estimate  upon  it,  and 
dealt  out  such  a  penalty  upon  its  violation.  The'  Sab- 
bath was  fitted,  in  its  nature,  to  be  such  a.  sign  or  badge. 
As  such,  the  obligation  to  observe  it  was  only  another 
form  of  the  obligation  to  have  no  other  gods  before 
Jehovah,  and  was  therefore  equally  sacred,  and  its  vio- 
lation equally  criminal. 

In  this  view  of  the  case,  all  is  plain.  Every  thing 
is  just  what  we  should  expect.  Foi'  every  thing  there 
is  a  reason,  good  and  sufiicient ;  while,  on  the  suppo- 
sition that  the  Sabbath  was  originally  given  as  a  me- 
morial of  deliverance  from  Egypt,  and  yet  selected  as 
the  sign  in  question,  all  is  arbitrary,  without  reason, 
significancy,  or  aim.  Moreover,  in  this  view,  too,  we 
see  at  once  why  the  Sabbath,  with  its  connected  priv- 
ileges and  rights,  was  to  the  idolatrous  Egyptians  the 
most  obnoxious  of  all  the  Hebrew  peculiarities,  and 
therefore  among  the  first  of  those  peculiarities  to  be 


A    SIGN.  81 

taken  away,  and  the  last  to  be  restored.  It,  with  its 
privileges  and  rights,  was  their  great  distinctive  badge 
as  the  worshippers  of  Jehovah.  Its  observance  was 
therefore  their  weekly,  national  testimony  against  the 
gods  of  Egypt.  No  wonder  their  oppressors  took 
it  away.  And  when  God  came  down  to  deliver,  no 
wonder  that,  as  a  means  to  its  end,  or  as  involving 
the  question  of  their  religious  and  civil  freedom,  this 
became  the  great  question  at  issue. 


CHAPTER    VIII. 

THE  ARGUMENT  RECAPITULATED  AND  CLOSED. 

Suppose  we  now  briefly  review  the  ground  over 
which  we  have  passed.  We  have  shown  that  in  the 
first  mention  of  the  Sabbath,  (Gen.  ii.  2,  3,)  there  is 
every  thing  to  prove  that  it  was  instituted  at  creation, 
the  time  specified,  and  was  as  truly  one  of  the  great 
permanent  arrangements  established  for  the  race,  as 
was  the  marriage  institution,  or  any  of  the  other  ar- 
rangements then  first  brought  into  being.  We  have 
shown  that  the  argument  from  geology  is  without 
force ;  that  fi*om  Adam  to  Moses,  there  is  every  allu- 
sion to,  and  mention  of,  its  existence  and  observance, 
which,  in  such  and  so  short  a  history,  ought  to  be  ex- 
pected ;  that  in  the  deliverance  from  Egypt,  consid- 
ered as  a  means  to  its  appropriate  end,  it,  with  its 
connected  privileges  and  rights,  was  the  great  ques- 
tion at  issue,  and  the  very  reason  of  the  deliverance ; 
that  it  was  not  originally  given  as  a  memorial  of  that 
deliverance,  nor  in  the  wilderness ;  that  the  fact  of 
God's  not  having  made  the  same  covenant  with  the 
fathers,  as  with  those  he  brought  out  of  Egypt,  no 
more  proves  that  the  fathers  had  not  the  Sabbath, 
with  the  law  of  its  observance,  than  that  they  were 
without  every  other  command  of  the  decalogue ;  and, 
finally,  that  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  as  a  stand- 
ing ordinance,  became  a  sign  between  Jehovah  and 


THE  SABBATH  IN  THE  DECALOGUE.     83 

the  Hebrews  only  by  virtue  of  its  connection  with 
creation,  as  a  memorial  of  that  event ;  and,  therefore, 
that  the  fact  of  its  being  such  a  sign  only  proves  it  to 
have  existed  from  the  first,  and  to  have  come  down, 
from  age  to  age,  as,  every  where  and  at  all  times,  the 
same  great  distinctive  badge  of  the  worshippers  of 
Jehovah.    In  prosecuting  the  argument,  I  remark, 

2.  The  Sabbath  is  spoken  of  in  the  decalogue  as 
an  institution  previously  existing,  and  is  there,  as  well 
as  in  the  prophets,  incorporated  with  other  laws  ad- 
mitted to  be  of  original  and  ceaseless  obligation. 
Without  expanding  the  argument,  I  observe,  (1.)  It 
is  the  only  law  of  the  ten,  that  is  claimed  to  be 
merely  Jewish.  (2.)  It  is  a  part  of  that  code  which 
the  Savior  declared  (Matt.  v.  17,  18)  should  never 
pass  away.  (3.)  It  is  coupled  often  (e.  g.  Is.  Iviii.) 
with  the  doing  of  justice  and  judgment,  and  letting 
the  oppressed  go  free  —  duties  which  all  admit  to  be 
of  unchanging  and  ceaseless  obligation.  (4.)  The 
term  "  Remember "  is  indicative  of  its  preexistence. 
But  without  laying  stress  upon  the  mere  phraseology, 
if  the  law,  "  Thou  shalt  not  steal,"  was  evidence  of 
preexisting  rights  of  property,  and  not  of  the  original 
institution  of  those  rights ;  if  the  law,  "  Thou  shalt 
not  commit  adultery,"  argued  with  equal  clearness  a 
preexisting  marriage  institution,  with  its  conjugal  and 
filial  relations,  and  not  their  original  establishment ; 
and  so  of  the  other  laws  of  the  decalogue,  if  their 
grand  object  was,  as  is  admitted,  not  to  institute  their 
respective  rights  and  institutions  as  new,  but  only  to 
guard  them  as  old  and  permanent  ones,  why  must 
not  the  same  be  true  of  the  law  of  the  Sabbath  ? 

3.  Ancient  testimony  confirms  the  doctrine  of  the 


84  THE    SABBATH 

institution  of  the  Sabbath  at  creation.  Writers,  some 
of  whom  lived  more  than  a  thousand  years  before 
the  Christian  era,  speak  of  the  division  of  time  into 
weeks,  and  of  the  special  observance  of  the  seventh 
day  of  the  week,  as  a  season  for  diversions  or  the 
offering  of  sacrifices  to  their  gods,  as  facts  existing 
among  various  heathen  nations.  The  following  is  a 
specimen  of  their  testimony :  — 

Homer  says,  "Afterwards  came  the  seventh,  the  sacred 
day." 

Hesiod  says,  "The  seventh  day  is  holy." 

Callimaclius  speaks  of  the  seventh  day  as  holy. 

Lucian  says,  "  The  seventh  day  is  given  to  school-boya 
as  a  holiday." 

Porphyry  says,  *•  The  Phenicians  consecrated  one  day  in 
seven  as  holy." 

Josephus  says,  "  There  is  no  city,  either  of  Greeks  or 
barbarians,  or  any  other  nation,  where  the  religion  of  the 
Sabbath  is  not  known." 

Grotius  says,  "  That  the  memory  of  the  creation  being 
performed  in  seven  days,  was  preserved  not  only  among 
the  Greeks  and  Italians,  but  among  the  Celts  and  Indians, 
all  of  whom  divided  their  time  into  weeks." 

Eusehius  says,  "  Almost  all  the  philosophers  and  poets 
acknowledge  the  seventh  day  as  holy." 

Similar  testimonies  might  be  added,  showing  that  a 
division  of  time  into  weeks  obtained  also  among  the  As- 
syrians, Egyptians,  Romans,  Gauls,  Britons,  and  Ger- 
mans. Now,  situated  as  many  of  these  nations  were  in 
respect  to  the  Jews,  and  prevailing  as  the  customs  in 
question  did  at  so  early  a  period  among  them,  it  is 
manifest  that  they  could  not  have  been  derived  from 


^4r 


>i>^;n^ 


PN    ITS    ORIGINAL    DESIGN. 


'&.    #'i?. 


the  Jews  after  the  time  of  Moses.  They  must  have 
had  an  earlier  origin.  Besides,  is  it  supposable  that  all 
these  nations,  if  they  had  the  opportunity,  would  have 
copied  the  custom  from  the  hated  Jews  ?  Never.  • 
The  only  rational  solution  is  this  —  that  the  Sabbath 
was  instituted  at  creation ;  that  with  it  began  the 
division  of  time  into  weeks  ;  that  as  men  multiplied, 
and  fell  off  to  the  worship  of  idols,  they  still  carried 
with  them,  from  age  to  age,  this  septenary  division  of 
time,  and,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  a  perverted  ob- 
sei-vance  of  the  seventh  day  itself.  When,  therefore, 
we  find  this  division  of  time  among  the  nations,  and 
the  seventh  day  itself  in  some  cases  a  special  holi- 
day for  the  children,  and  in  others  a  season  for  offer- 
ings and  feasts  to  idols,  we  have  in  these  facts  the 
relics  and  the  perverted  observances  of  an  institution 
established  at  creation,  observed  by  the  patriarchs, 
transmitted  by  them  to  the  nations,  and,  in  its  wnper- 
verted  observance,  designed  to  be  a  badge  in  all  time 
of  the  worshippers  of  Jehovah  as  the  only  true  God. 
4.  The  original  design  of  the  Sabbath  makes  it 
equally  manifest  that  it  was  instituted  at  creation, 
and  is  perpetually  binding.  This  design  is  three- 
fold : —  (1.)  to  commemorate  the  fact  of  creation  by  Je- 
hovah ;  (2.)  to  afford  a  period  of  needful  rest  to  man 
and  beast  from  the  ordinary  labors  of  life ;  and,  (3.)  to 
afford  an  opportunity  for  spiritual  instruction,  im- 
provement, and  worship.  That  these  three  elements 
entered  originally  into  the  very  nature  and  design  of 
the  Sabbath,  is  obvious  from  what  has  already  been 
said.  It  was  (Gen.  ii.  2,  3,  and  Ex.  xx.  11)  because 
the  Lord  made  the  world  in  six  days,  and  rested  on 
the  seventh,  that  he  blessed  and  hallowed,  or  set  it 
8 


86  THE    SABBATH 

apart  as  a  season  of  religious  rest  and  worship.  It 
was  that  their  children,  strangers,  servants,  and 
beasts,  (Deut.  v.  14,)  "might  rest  as  well  as  they," 
and  (Ex.  xxiii.  12)  "  be  refreshed,"  that  the  Hebrews 
were  strictly  enjoined  to  keep  the  Sabbath,  and  (Ex. 
XX.  10)  "not  do  any  work"  thereon.  And  the  whole 
arrangement  together  was,  that  parent,  child,  servant, 
and  stranger,  might  alike  enjoy  a  season  of  religious 
rest,  improvement,  and  worship.  As  a  memorial  of 
creation  by  Jehovah,  its  standing  obsei*vance  was  a 
standing  testimony  that  the  world  was  made  by  him, 
and  not  by  idols ;  that  he,  therefore,  was  the  only  true 
God,  and  that  those  who  observed  the  day  were  his 
worshippers.  It  thus  chronicled  the  true  origin  of 
the  world,  and  was,  in  its  very  nature,  a  distinctive 
badge  of  the  worshippers  of  Jehovah.  As  affording 
a  period  of  rest  from  the  ordinary  labors  of  life,  the 
standing  observance  of  the  Sabbath  was  a  standing 
provision  to  meet  those  physical  necessities  of  man 
and  beast,  which  are  not  met  by  the  return  of  day 
and  night.  As  affording  a  period,  set  apart,  sacredly, 
to  spiritiml  instruction,  improvement,  and  worship,  it  was 
just  such  a  standing  provision  as  the  case  required 
to  meet  the  demands  of  man's  spiritual  being.  In 
either  aspect  of  its  design,  then,  that  design  proves 
conclusively  that  the  Sabbath  was  instituted  at  crea- 
tion, and  that,  in  all  its  sacredness  of  obligation,  it  is 
to  live  and  be  binding  on  man  while  man  lives  on 
earth.  If,  as  a  chronicler  of  creation,  and  a  badge  of 
faith  to  distinguish  the  worshippers  of  Jehovah  from 
those  of  idols,  there  was  a  reason  for  the  Sabbath  in 
the  time  of  Moses,  that  reason  is  equally  valid  for 
its  establishment  at  creation,  and  its    continuance, 


IN   ITS    ORIGINAL    DESIGN.  87 

as  an  institution,  to  the  end  of  time.  If,  as  a  season 
of  rest  and  worship,  to  meet  the  demands  of  man's 
physical  and  spiritual  being,  there  was  a  reason  for 
it  then,  that  reason  had  equal  force  from  the  begin- 
ning, and  will  have  to  the  end  of  time  —  as  long  as 
man  remains  man.  Take  which  aspect  of  its  design 
you  will,  and  in  each  and  all  of  them  you  can  find 
no  period  of  man's  existence,  from  the  creation  on- 
ward, in  which  the  reason  for  the  Sabbath,  growing 
out  of  its  design,  has  not  existed,  and  will  not  con- 
tinue to  exist,  in  full  and  unabated  force.  What,  then, 
is  the  inference  ?  Just  what  it  is  in  respect  to  the 
marriage  institution  and  the  laws  of  its  observance. 
Just  what  it  is  in  respect  to  the  rights  of  property, 
person,  and  life,  and  the  laws  of  their  observance  — 
manente  ratione,  manet  ipsa  lex  —  the  reason  of  the  law 
remaining,  the  law  itself  remains.  Or,  to  suit  the 
maxim  to  the  case,  the  reason  for  the  law  existing 
always,  the  law  itself  exists  always,  and,  beginning 
therefore  with  the  race,  exists  for  the  race,  and  is  to 
end  only  with  the  race,  in  its  present  state  of  being. 
Such  is  the  conclusion  of  sound  philosophy  and 
common  sense. 

5.  I  obsei*ve,  then,  finally,  that  there  is  a  permanent 
demand  for  the  Sabbath,  in  the  nature,  relations,  and  ne- 
cessities of  man ;  and,  therefore,  a  demand  for  its  in- 
stitution at  creation,  and  its  continuance  to  the  end 
of  time.  The  argument  might  be  expanded  at  great 
length.  My  design,  however,  requires  brevity.  I 
remark,  then, 

(1.)  Experience  shows  that  the  Sabbath  is  de- 
manded by  the  physical  necessities  of  man.  It  proves 
that  men,  and  all  laboring  animals,  whether  their 


88  THE    SABBATH    DEMANDED 

labor  be  mental  or  bodily,  or  both,  need  at  least  one 
day  in  seven  for  rest  from  their  ordinary  labors  — 
that  they  will  live  longer  and  do  more,  in  the  same 
period,  with  it  than  without  it.  Two  testimonies,  as 
specimens  of  a  thousand  similar  ones,  must  suffice. 

On  the  22d  of  June,  1839,  A  Committee  on  Vice  and 
Immorality,  of  the  Pennsylvania  Legislature,  made  a 
report  relative  to  the  suspension  of  labor  on  the  pub- 
lic improvements  in  that  state,  on  the  Sabbath.  The 
committee  refer  to  certain  petitions  that  had  been  re- 
ceived on  the  subject,  and  say,  — 

"They  (the  petitioners)  assert,  as  the  result  of  their 
own  experience,  that  both  man  and  beast  can  do  more 
work  by  resting  one  day  in  seven,  than  by  working  the 
whole  seven;  and  your  committee  feel  free  to  confess 
that  their  experience  as  farmers,  business  men,  or  legisla- 
tors, corresponds  with  the  assertion." 

In  the  year  1838,  Dr.  Parre,  an  eminent  physician 
in  London,  of  forty  years'  practice,  gave  the  following 
testimony  before  a  committee  of  the  British  par- 
liament :  — 

"  The  use  of  the  Sabbath,  medically  speaking,  is  that  of 
a  day  of  rest.  It  is  a  day  of  compensation  for  the  inade- 
quate restorative  power  of  the  body  under  continual  labor 
and  excitement.  A  physician  always  has  respect  to  the 
restorative  power,  because,  if  once  this  be  lost,  his  healing 
office  is  at  an  end.  The  ordinary  exertions  of  man  run 
down  the  circulation  every  day  of  his  life ;  and  the  first 
general  law  of  nature,  by  which  God  prevents  man  from 
destroying  himself,  is  the  alternating  of  day  with  night, 
that  repose  may  succeed  action.    But  though  night  ap- 


BY    MAN'S    PHYSICAL    NECESSITIES.  09 

parently  equalizes  the  circulation  well,  yet  it  does  not 
sufficiently  restore  its  balance  for  the  attainment  of  a  long 
life.  Hence  one  day  in  seven,  by  the  bounty  of  Provi- 
dence, is  thrown  in  as  a  day  of  compensation,  to  perfect, 
by  its  repose,  the  animal  system.  The  Sabbatical  institu- 
tion is  not  simply  a  precept  partaking  of  the  nature  of  a 
political  institution,  but  it  is  to  be  numbered  among  the 
natural  duties,  if  the  preservation  of  life  be  admitted  to  be 
a  duty,  and  the  premature  destruction  of  it  a  suicidal  act. 
This  is  said  simply  as  a  physician,  without  any  respect 
at  all  to  the  theological  question.  I  have  found  it  essen- 
tial to  my  own  well-being,  as  a  medieval  man,  to  abridge 
my  labors  on  the  Sabbath  to  what  is  actually  necessary. 
I  have  frequently  observed  the  premature  death  of  physi- 
cians from  continued  exertion.  In  warm  climates,  and  in 
active  service,  this  is  painfully  apparent.  I  have  advised 
the  clergyman,  in  lieu  of  his  Sabbath,  to  rest  one  day  in 
the  week;  it  forms  a  continual  prescription  of  mine.  I 
have  seen  many  destroyed  by  their  duties  on  that  day.  T 
would  say,  further,  that,  quitting  the  grosser  evils  of  mere 
animal  living  from  over-stimulation,  and  undue  exercise 
of  body,  the  working  of  the  mind  in  one  continual  train 
of  thought,  is  the  destruction  of  life  in  the  most  distin- 
guished classes  of  society,  and  that  senators  themselves 
need  reform  in  that  respect.  I  have  seen  many  of  them 
destroyed  by  neglecting  this  economy  of  life." 

(2.)  Experience  shows  that  the  Sabbath  is  demand- 
ed, in  like  manner,  by  the  moral  necessities  of  man. 
Man  is  naturally  a  religious  being,  and,  as  such,  ever 
has  had,  and  ever  will  have,  some  object  of  religious 
respect  and  reverence.  If  he  do  not  worship  and 
adore  the  true  God,  the  very  elements  of  his  being 
drive  him  to  some  false  god.  Skeptics  may  deny 
this ;  but  in  the  very  homage  they  themselves  occa- 
8* 


90 


THE    SABBATH    DEMANDED 


sionally  or  annually  pay  to  the  bones  or  the  birthday 
of  some  sainted  unbeliever,  they  are  a  proof  to  them- 
selves, that  man  w^as  unade  to  reverence  and  worship 
some  superior;  that  such  homage  and  vrorship  are 
among  the  native  elements  of  his  being ;  and  that  adore 
and  worship  some  God,  true  or  false,  he  always  must 
and  will.  Of  course  religious  instruction,  improve- 
ment, and  worship,  of  some  kind,  are  among  the  per- 
manent and  ceaseless  demands  of  his  being.  These 
he  must  have,  and  these,  true  or  false,  he  will  have. 
But  he  cannot  have  them  without  occasional  or  stated 
times  for  it. 

Moreover,  man  is  also  naturally  a  social  being.  The 
social  in  his  nature  is  indeed  one  of  its  most  powerful 
elements.  You  can  never  instruct,  elevate,  and  fire, 
the  man  more  effectually  than  when  you  take  advan- 
tage of  the  social  within  him.  Religious  instruction, 
improvement,  and  worship,  then,  to  address  themselves 
to  the  whole  man,  and  be  most  effective,  must  be  of  a 
pubhc  and  social  character,  as  well  as  private.  Of 
course  there  must  be  public  assemblies — "not  for- 
saking the  assembling  of  yourselves  together,  as  the 
manner  of  some  is."  And  these,  that  people  may 
know  when  to  come  together,  must  be  held  at  stated 
and  regular  times.  In  the  social  and  the  religious  of 
man,  then,  we  have  a  permanent  and  ceaseless  demand 
for  the  regular  social  opportunities  and  privileges  of 
the  Sabbath.  Wherever  this  demand  is  met  by  the 
existence  and  due  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  we 
ought  to  expect,  as  its  legitimate  result,  the  highest 
condition  of  spiritual  improvement  and  welfare.  And, 
on  the  other  hand,  without  any  such  anticipation,  if 
we  find,  as  the  result  of  actual  experience,  that  where 


BY  man's  moral  necessities.  91 

the  Sabbath  does  exist,  and  is  truly  observed,  man's 
spiritual  welfare  is  most  effectually  promoted,  we  have 
in  that  fact  the  proof  that  there  is  such  a  demand  in 
the  very  nature  and  necessities  of  his  being.  For  if 
the  demand  do  not  exist,  —  if  it  do  not  lie  imbedded  in 
the  very  nature  of  man,  and  the  laws  oT  his  being,  — 
then  the  Sabbath,  with  its  opportunities  and  obser- 
vances, must  conflict  with  that  nature,  and  do  violence 
to  those  laws,  and,  doing  so,  must  injure  rather  than 
benefit  man,  and  make  him  worse  instead  of  better. 

What,  then,  are  the  facts?  Is  the  moral  and  spirit- 
ual condition  of  those  communities  where  there  is  no 
Sabbath,  or  only  a  perverted  one,  in  advance  of  those 
where  there  is  one,  and  one  observed  according  to  its 
true  spirit  and  intent  ?  Let  universal  experience  an- 
swer. Are  those  individuals  who  truly  keep  the  Sab- 
bath in  a  worse  spiritual  condition  than  those  who  do 
not  ?  Are  they  less  ready  to  do  good  to  the  bodies 
and  souls  of  then*  fellow-men  ?  When  Great  Britain 
gave  freedom  to  eight  hundred  thousand  slaves,  was 
it  the  Sabbath  or  the  anti-Sabbath  men  that  roused 
her  to  that  deed  of  mercy,  and  compelled  her  to  carry 
it  through  ?  Was  it  the  Sabbath  or  the  anti-Sabbath 
men  that  originated  and  that  now  sustain  the  great 
work  of  missions  among  the  heathen,  and  indeed 
among  the  destitute  at  home  ?  The  mission  at  the 
Sandwich  Islands  has  converted  a  heathen  to  a  Chris- 
tian people.  It  is,  moreover,  so  far  as  the  missionaries 
are  concerned,  an  anti-slaveiy  mission.  What  no- 
Sabbath  man,  since  he  became  such,  ever  has,  or  ever 
intends  to  lift  a  finger  for  its  support  ?  Or,  if  the  plea 
be,  that  such  support  cannot  be  rendered  without 
lending  a  sanction  to  the  coiTupt  channels  through 


9Sf  THE    SABBATH    DEMANDED 

which  that  mission  now  receives  support,  then  where 
are  the  missions,  at  home  or  abroad,  originated  and  sus- 
tained by  no-Sabbath  men  themselves  ?  Nay,  among 
all  the  religious  visits  ever  made,  and  all  the  great  re- 
forms ever  attempted,  by  no-Sabbath  men  or  women, 
when  or  where  has  one  of  them  ever  made  a  religious 
visit  to  a  heathen  community,  or  attempted  a  reform  on 
heathen  ground  ?  And  where  are  the  regenerated  and 
disinthralled  communities  that  have  sprung  into  being 
as  the  result  of  such  labors  of  love  ?  The  command  of 
the  Savior,  "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the 
gospel  to  every  creature,"  has  been  as  distinctly  before, 
and  as  imperiously,  binding  on  them  as  on  others. 
Yet  when  and  where  have  they  even  begun  or  at- 
tempted to  obey  it,  in  respect  to  the  entire  heathen 
world  ?  The  History  of  Missions,  I  believe,  has  yet 
to  chronicle  the  event. 

Or  to  vary  the  test,  man,  according  to  the  Scriptures, 
is  "  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins."  To  be  saved  he  "must 
be  born  again."  Now,  whatever  may  be  the  views 
of  different  individuals  in  regard  to  the  nature  of  this 
new  birth,  all  agree  that  it  is  such  a  spiritual  renova- 
tion as  inspires  the  man  with  habitual  respect,  rever- 
ence, and  affection  for  God;  such  as  reclaims  the 
vicious,  reforms  the  intemperate,  and  makes  the  indo- 
lent industrious,  and  the  dishonest  honest.  To  effect 
it  is  therefore  the  best  thing  that  can  be  done  for  the 
spiritual  well-being  of  man,  either  here  or  hereafter. 
Now,  there  are  not  a  few  of  the  believers  in  the  Sab- 
bath who  can  point  to  their  own  labors  and  instruc- 
tions on  that  day  as  the  means  of  thus  renovating  and 
reclaiming  their  fellow-men.  They  can  point  you  to 
individuals,  in  instances  not  a  few,  who  will  stand  up 


BY  man's  moral  necessities.  93 

as  "  brands  plucked  from  the  burning,"  and  as  "  living 
epistles  known  and  read  of  all  men,"  and  testify  be- 
fore all  to  the  healthful  and  reclaiming  influence  of 
the  Sabbath.  Yes,  there  are  thousands  on  thousands 
in  this  land  who  owe  to  the  Sabbath,  with  its  precious 
privileges  and  instructions,  all  that  they  are  of  charac- 
ter and  of  destiny,  both  for  this  world  and  for  that 
to  come,  and  who,  if  called  upon,  would  so  testify. 
Where,  now,  are  the  individuals  that  have  been  so 
renovated  and  reclaimed  by  men  of  the  other  views  ? 
Where  are  the  debauchees,  and  the  profligates,  and  the 
swearers,  and  the  gamblers,  and  the  thieves,  and  the 
liars,  and  the  drmikards,  once  "  dead  in  trespasses  and 
sins,"  but  now  "born  again"  and  reclaimed,  and 
ready  to  stand  up  and  testify  that  they  have  been 
plucked  from  ruin  by  the  no-Sabbath  men  and  the 
no-Sabbath  views  ?  Are  the  men  —  is  the  man  so 
renovated  and  reclaimed  to  be  found?  I,  at  least, 
have  yet  to  see  him. 

Or,  passing  from  their  disposition  to  do  good  to 
others,  suppose  we  examine  the  spiritual  condition 
of  the  men  themselves.  Are  they  who  believe  in 
and  keep  the  Sabbath,  more  disposed  than  others  to 
evil,  more  bent  upon  their  own  indulgence,  more 
reckless  of  their  neighbors'  rights,  reputation,  and 
property,  —  in  a  word,  more  bold  and  frequent  in  the 
commission  of  crimes,  that  war  upon  society,  and  set 
human  and  divine  law  alike  at  defiance?  Let  us 
hear  the  witnesses. 

Sir  Matthew  Hale  said,  "  That  of  the  persons  who 
were  convicted  of  capital  crimes  while  he  was  on  the 
bench,  he  found  only  a  few  who  would  not  confess 
that  they  began  their  career  of  wickedness  by  a  neg- 


94  THE    SABBATH    DEMANDED 

lect  of  the  duties  of  the  Sabbath,  and  by  vicious  con- 
duct on  that  day." 

In  1838,  before  the  committee  of  the  British  parlia- 
ment, the  Rev.  David  Ruel,  who  had  been  twenty-eight 
years  chaplain  of  prisons  in  London,  and  who  had 
had,  on  a  low  calculation,  one  hundred  thousand 
prisoners  under  his  care,  testified  as  follows  :  —  "  I  do 
not  recollect  a  single  case  of  capital  offence  where 
the  party  has  not  been  a  Sabbath-breaker ;  and  in 
many  cases,  they  have  assured  me  that  Sabbath- 
breaking  was  the  first  step  in  the  course  of  crime. 
Indeed,  I  may  say,  in  reference  to  prisoners  of  all 
classes,  that  in  nineteen  cases  out  of  twenty,  they  are 
persons  who  not  only  neglected  the  Sabbath,  but  all 
the  other  ordinances  of  religion." 

Such  testimony  might  be  multiplied  to  any  extent. 
What  does  it  prove  ?  Obviously,  that  there  is  that 
in  the  Sabbath  and  its  right  observance  which  just 
meets  the  physical  and  spiritual  necessities  of  man, 
and  which,  because  it  meets  these  demands  of  Ms  being, 
makes  it  a  most  effectual  promoter  of  his  physical 
and  spiritual  welfare.  And  what  is  this  but  saying, 
in  other  terms,  that  there  is,  in  the  very  nature,  re- 
lations, and  necessities  of  man,  a  permanent  and 
ceaseless  demand  for  the  Sabbath  ?  And  now,  with 
this  demand  distinctly  before  him,  and  with  a  heart 
always  intent  on  man's  best  good,  is  it  to  be  believed, 
that  God  did  not  provide  for  meeting  it  by  the  insti- 
tution of  the  Sabbath  at  the  outset,  or  that  he  does 
not  mean  to  provide  for  it  in  future  by  its  continu- 
ance to  the  end  of  time  ?  By  no  means.  The  truth 
is,  the  Sabbath,  as  an  institution,  —  not  the  particular 
day  of  its  observance,  —  is  as  really  founded  in  the 


BY  man's  moral  necessities.  95 

nature  and  relations  of  man,  and  grows  as  naturally 
out  of  his  physical  and  moral  necessities,  as  does  that 
of  marriage.  Both  must  have  had  their  origin  with 
the  race,  and  must  be  equally  designed  to  continue, 
while  the  race  does  in  its  present  state  of  being. 
Indeed,  the  laws  of  their  observance,  as  we  have 
seen,  no  less  than  those  which  guard  the  rights  of 
conscience,  property,  person,  and  life,  are  equally  a 
part  of  the  common  law  of  man,  and,  as  such,  bind- 
ing on  all,  m  all  time.  Can  it  be  doubted,  then,  that 
the  Sabbath,  as  an  institution,  is  perpetually  binding  ? 


CHANGE   OF   THE   DAY. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

STATEMENT  OF  THE  QUESTION,  AND  PRELIMI- 
NARY REMARKS. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  prosecute  the  second  ques- 
tion at  issue  in  this  discussion  —  viz.  Has  any  particular 
day  been  set  apart,  by  divine  appointment,  for  the  obser- 
vance of  the  Sabbath,  and  if  so,  what  day  ? 

All  agree  that,  originally,  the  seventh  day  of  the 
week  was  so  set  apart.  But  from  some  cause  the 
Cliristian  world  has  generally  fallen  away  from  the 
observance  of  the  seventh  to  that  of  the  first.  The 
question,  therefore,  practically  assumes  this  form  — 
viz.  Has  the  first  day  of  the  week  been  set  apart,  by  divine 
appointment,  to  be  observed,  in  place  of  the  seventh,  as  tlie 
Sabbath f  Has  God  authoiized  the  change")  That  he 
has,  I  shall  attempt  to  prove.  Before  doing  so,  how- 
ever, I  wish  to  make  a  few  preliminary  remarks. 
And, 

1.  The  change  of  the  day  is  a  question  entirely 
distinct  from  that  of  the  perpetual  obligation  of  the 
Sabbath  as  an  institution.  The  day  selected  for  its 
observance  may  remain  the  same  or  be  changed.    And 


PRELIMINARY    REMARKS.  97 

SO  may  the  mode  of  its  observance  — provided  only  that 
its  true  intent  and  great  end  be  preserved.  But  wheth- 
er changed  or  not,  is  one  question.  Whether  there  is 
such  an  institution  perpetually  existing  and  perpetually 
binding  on  all,  is  another.  And  the  two  questions  are 
entirely  distinct,  the  one  from  the  other.     Therefore, 

2,  If  God  has  not  authorized  a  change  of  the  day 
from  the  seventh  to  the  first,  then  the  seventh  is  the 
Sabbath,  and  is  to  be  kept  as  such.  Should  we  fail  in 
our  proof  of  a  divine  warrant  for  the  change,  it  will 
not  follow  that  there  is  no  Sabbath.  It  will  only  fol- 
low that  the  seventh  day  of  the  week  is  to  be  kept  as 
Sabbath  instead  of  the  first.  You  must  admit  the 
change,  and  keep  the  first  day  of  the  week  as  Sabbath, 
with  all  the  sacredness  of  original  obligation,  or  go 
back  to  the  seventh,  and  keep  that.  Change  or  no 
change,  the  Sabbath,  as  an  institution,  remains  the 
same,  the  law  of  its  observance  as  sacredly  binding  as 
ever,  and  the  man  who  breaks  it  as  palpable  a  violator 
of  the  divine  command.  Decide  the  question  of  the 
day,  then,  as  you  will,  the  institution  and  the  obligation 
to  keep  it  remain.  If  you  reject  the  first,  you  are  shut 
up  to  the  seventh  as  your  Sabbath.  In  either  event, 
you  are  cut  off  from  no-Sabbathism,  and  are  bound  to 
observe  one  day  or  the  other,  or  rank  yourself  a  vio- 
lator of  divine  command. 

3.  If  God  has  authorized  a  change  of  day,  that  does 
not  change  or  obliterate  the  obligation  to  keep  it  holy 
to  the  Lord.  Be  "  Sabbath-day "  the  seventh  or  the 
first,  the  obligation,  "  Remember  the  Sabbath-day  to 
keep  it  holy,"  is  the  same  —  applying  equally  to  the  one 
as  to  the  other.  In  other  terms,  there  is  a  plain  dis- 
tinction between  the  Sabbath,  as  an  institution,  and  the 

9 


9®  CHANGE    OF    THE    DAY. 

particular  day  selected  for  its  obsei-vance.  This  is  ob- 
vious from  what  has  been  said.  Besides,  but  for  such 
distinction,  the  command  must  run,  "  Remember  the 
seventh  day,"  &c.  —  thus  making  the  institution  and 
the  day  identical ;  or,  at  least,  laying  as  much  stress  on 
the  one  as  on  the  other.  But  the  form  of  phraseology 
now  is,  "Remember  the  Sabhath-day  to  keep  it  holy." 
Here  we  have  the  sum  total  of  the  command,  but  not 
a  word  yet  in  respect  to  the  particular  day  of  the  week, 
which  is  "  Sabbath-day."  And  it  is  only  as  God  pro- 
ceeds to  direct  how  it  is  to  be  kept,  that  we  learn  what 
the  particular  day  is ;  and  then  the  specification  comes 
in  only  incidentally,  or  as  a  matter  of  course.  No 
stress  is  laid  upon  the  particular  day  of  the  week,  as 
if  that  were  vital  to  the  institution.  The  great  burden 
of  the  injunction  is,  to  keep  ^'  Sabbath-day^^  holy?  be  it 
what  day  of  the  week  it  may;  and  the  great  object  of 
the  specification  is,  to  show  what  is  meant  by  so  keep- 
ing it,  not  to  point  out  or  lay  stress  upon  the  par- 
ticular day,  as  if  that,  rather  than  some  other,  were 
essential  to  the  existence  of  the  institution  itself  Of 
course,  a  change  of  the  day  can  make  no  change  in 
the  institution  itself,  or  in  the  obligation  to  keep  it. 
These,  in  all  essentials,  remain  the  same  —  perpetually 
existing  and  perpetually  binding,  whatever  the  changes 
which  God  may  authorize  in  respect  to  the  time  or 
mode  of  their  observance.    Indeed, 

4.  The  Sabbath,  as  an  institution,  cannot  be  abro- 
gated. Founded  as  it  is,  like  the  marriage  institution, 
in  the  nature,  relations,  and  necessities  of  man,  God 
can  no  more  abrogate  it,  and  the  law  of  its  obsei*vance, 
than  he  can  that  of  marriage,  with  its  conjugal  and 
filial  relations,  and  the  laws  of  their  observance.    Both 


PRELIMINARY    REMARKS.  99 

Stand  upon  the  same  footing.  Both  grow  aUke  out  of 
man's  nature,  relations,  and  necessities.  Both  are 
equally  the  ceaseless  demand  of  his  being.  The  laws 
of  their  observance,  as  we  have  seen,  ai'e  equally  a  part 
of  universal  common  law.  They  are  alike,  in  precept 
and  in  penalty,  the  intrenchments  of  the  Almighty, 
thrown  around  their  respective  institutions  for  their 
sacred  observance  and  ceaseless  perpetuity.  In  these, 
therefore,  there  can,  in  the  nature  of  things,  be  no 
change.  The  institutions,  and  the  obligation  to  ob- 
serve them,  m  their  general  scope  and  spirit,  must 
stand  to  the  end  of  time.    But, 

5.  While  no  change  can  take  place  in  the  Sabbath, 
as  an  institution,  or  in  the  obligation  to  observe  it,  God 
may,  and  we  shoidd  naturally  expect  that  he  would, 
regulate  the  time  and  manner  of  its  observance ;  that 
he  would  select  such  a  day,  and  direct  it  to  be  kept  in 
such  manner  as  to  make  it  best  answer  its  great  de- 
sign as  a  season  of  religious  rest,  improvement,  and 
worship.  Such  selection  of  the  day  is  of  course  of  the 
nature  of  a  positive  institution,  and  is  subject,  like  every 
thing  else  of  that  nature,  to  change  or  abrogation, 
whenever  there  are  good  and  sufficient  reasons  for  it. 
Therefore, 

6.  Whenever  such  reasons  exist,  we  should  expect 
the  change  as  a  matter  of  course.  Certain  reasons 
determined  the  selection,  at  the  outset,  of  the  seventh 
as  "  Sabbath-day."  If,  now,  in  the  course  of  events, 
other  and  superior  reasons  come  into  existence,  in  fa-  ^ 
vor  of  the  selection  of  the  first  in  place  of  the  seventh, 
a  change  of  day  is  of  course  to  be  expected.  Indeed, 
the  reasons  for  such  change  existing,  we  have  in  that 
fact  not  only  a  warrant  for  expecting  it,  but  presump- 
tive evidence  that  it  has  actually  been  made. 


100  CHANGE    OF    THE    DAY. 

7.  If  any  change  in  the  day  has  been  made,  it  was 
made,  as  all  admit,  by  Jesus  Christ,  or  by  his  au- 
thority. 

8.  Christ  had  the  right  to  change  it,  if  he  saw  fit. 
(1.)  He  claimed  such  right.  On  a  certain  occasion, 
(Mark  ii.  23 — 28,)  the  Pharisees  complained  of  the  dis- 
ciples as  Sabbath- breakers,  because,  in  going  through 
the  cornfields  on  the  Sabbath,  they  had  plucked  and 
eaten  some  of  the  ears.  Christ  justified  them,  not  by 
asserting  that  there  was,  or  was  to  be,  no  Sabbath, 
but  by  showing  that  what  they  did  was  not  a  violation 
of  it,  according  to  its  original  and  true  intent  His 
argument  was.  First,  they  have  only  done  a  work  of 
necessity  and  mercy,  and  such  a  work,  like  David's 
eating  the  show-bread,  is  perfectly  lawful  on  the  Sab- 
bath. For,  Second,  the  Sabbath  was  never  meant  to 
exclude  such  works.  "The  Sabbath  was  made  for 
{dia  ton,  for  the  sake  of)  man,  and  not  man  for  (dia  to, 
for  the  sake  of)  the  Sabbath."  Man  was  made  first,  and 
then  the  Sabbath  made  to  fit  him,  and  subserve  his 
welfare,  and  not  the  Sabbath  first,  and  he  made  to  fit 
and  subserve  it.  Its  grand  design,  then,  is  to  meet 
man's  necessities,  not  to  set  them  aside,  or  to  meet  one 
class  of  them  at  the  expense  of  another.  It  assumes 
that  the  lower  and  ordinary  demands  of  his  being  for 
necessai-y  food  and  raiment  are  met ;  and  it  then  comes 
in,  not  to  set  these  aside,  but  to  meet  other  demands, 
and  especially  the  higher  and  holier  ones  of  his  spiritual 
existence.  In  a  word,  it  was  meant  to  bless  the  whole 
man,  and  man  eveiy  where.  Moreover,  (Matt.  xii.  6 — 8,) 
"I  say  unto  you,  that  in  this  place  is  one  greater  than 
the  temple.  And  if  ye  had  known  what  this  meaneth, 
J  will  have  mercy  and  not  sacrifice,  ye  would  not  have 
condemned  the  guiltless.    For  the  Son  of  man,"  the 


niELIMINARY    REMARKS.  101 

Master  of  these  whom  you  so  unjustly  accuse,  "is 
Lord  even  of  the  Sabbath-day,"  and,  as  such,  can  au- 
thorize them  to  pluck  the  corn  to  satisfy  their  hunger, 
even  if,  as  it  is  not,  it  were  unlawful  to  do  so  without 
it.  As  Lord  of  the  Sabbath,  I  have  and  claim  the  right 
to  regulate  its  obsei*vance.  So  that,  in  either  case,  my 
disciples  are  not  violators  of  the  Sabbath.  Such,  plain- 
ly, was  the  drift  of  his  argument.  But  a  right,  as  Lord 
of  the  Sabbath,  to  regulate  its  observance,  is  plainly  a 
right,  for  good  and  sufficient  reasons,  to  change  the 
day,  or  make  any  other  change  in  respect  to  it,  not  in- 
compatible with  its  continued  existence  and  obliga- 
tion. 

Besides,  (2.)  It  was  Chist,  wJw,  as  Creator  of  the 
world,  originally  instituted  the  Sabbath,  and  selected 
the  seventh  as  the  day  for  its  observance.  This  is  ob- 
vious from  several  passages  of  Scripture.  In  Heb.  i. 
10,  God  is  represented  as  saying  to  the  Son,  "  Thou, 
Lord,  in  the  beginning,  hast  laid  the  foundation  of  the 
earth ;  and  the  heavens  are  the  works  of  thine  hands." 
See  also  v.  2  —  "  by  whom  also  he  made  the  worlds." 
The  apostle  John  declares,  (John  i.  3,)  "  All  things 
were  made  by  him;  and  without  him  was  not  any 
thing  made  that  was  made."  Here  we  have  it,  in  as 
distinct  terms  as  possible,  that  Jesus  Christ  was  the 
Creator  of  the  world.  Whether  he  did  this  with  de- 
rived or  underived  power,  as  the  inferior  or  the  equal 
of  the  Father,  alters  not  the  fact  that  he  did  it.  It  was 
therefore  he,  who,  as  Creator,  rested  from  the  work  of 
creation  on  the  seventh  day,  and  because  he  so  rested, 
afterwards  set  it  apart  as  a  day  of  religious  rest  and 
worship  for  man.  As  Creator,  then,  he  was  original 
Lord  of  the  Sabbath.  He  selected  the  day  for  its  ob- 
9  * 


102  CHANGE    OF    THE    DAY. 

servance  in  the  beginning.  Of  course  his  right  is  per- 
fect, for  good  and  sufficient  reasons,  to  select  another 
day.  And  if  he  has  done  it,  or  authorized  it  to  be 
done,  it  has  been  done  by  divine  authority  —  by  the 
same  authority,  in  fact,  which  originally  selected  the 
seventh  day. 

9.  The  change  which  has  actually  taken  place, 
(whether  authorized  or  not  remains  to  be  seen,)  is  just 
such  a  one  as  the  case  allows,  and  as  we  should  expect 
in  the  event  of  any  change.  It  leaves  the  nature,  de- 
sign, and  obligation  of  the  Sabbath  as  a  day  of  religious 
rest,  improvement,  and  worship,  the  same  as  they  were 
before.  It  makes  no  change  in  the  office  of  the  Sab- 
bath as  a  "  52^71 "  between  God  and  his  people,  except 
to  enhance  its  significancy.  In  its  true  and  hearty 
obseiTance,  the  Sabbath  is  as  distinctive  a  badge  of 
God's  people  now  as  it  ever  was.  The  change  in  the 
day  of  its  observance,  then,  is  only  a  change  of  its  char- 
acter as  a  memorial  —  it  being  now  a  memorial  of 
Christ's  work  of  redemption,  instead  of  his  work  of 
creation.  This  is  just  such  a  change  as  the  case  al- 
lows, and  as  we  should  expect  in  the  event  of  any.  It 
can  take  place  without  affecting  at  all  the  existence 
and  perpetuity  of  the  Sabbath  as  an  institution.  That 
remains  the  same. 

10.  The  nature  of  the  case  demands  just  such  a 
change  as  has  actually  taken  place,  and  is  so  far  pre- 
sumptive evidence  of  its  having  taken  place  by  divine 
authority.  For,  the  reason  for  such  change  existing, 
why  should  not  God  authorize  it  ?  The  Sabbath  was 
originally  a  memorial  of  creation.  But  the  work  of 
redemption  is  one  of  a  vastly  higher  chai-acter  and 
greater  importance,  inasmuch  as  it  looks  more  directly 


PRELIMINARY    REMARKS.  103 

to  the  well-being  of  the  soul,  and  is  fitted  to  add  higher 
glory  to  the  Godhead.  So  the  Bible  regards  it.  Hence, 
in  comparing  the  one  with  the  other,  it  predicts  a  time 
when  creation  shall  be  comparatively  forgotten  in  the 
superior  glories  of  redemption.  "Behold,"  (Isa.  Ixv. 
17,)  "1  create  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth ;  and  the 
former  shall  not  be  remembered,  nor  come  into  mind." 
Here,  then,  in  this  fact  we  have  a  reason  demanding 
the  change  in  question.  As  a  memorial  of  creation 
completed,  the  seventh  was  the  appropriate  day.  But 
in  redemption  completed  we  have  a  work  of  superior 
greatness  and  glory.  Why  should  it  not  be  chronicled 
by  its  appropriate  day  ?  Plainly  the  demand  for  it  is 
of  greater  force  than  was  that  for  the  original  selection 
of  the  seventh.  Is  it  to  be  supposed  that  God  has  met 
the  demand  in  the  one  case,  and  not  in  the  other? 
By  no  means. 


CHAPTER  X. 

NATURE  OF  THE  ARGUMENT  FOR  A  CHANGE  OF 
THE  DAY. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  prosecute  the  inquiry 
whether  Christ  made  or  authorized  a  change  of  the 
Sabbath  from  the  seventh  to  the  first  day  of  the  week. 

Great  stress  is  usually  laid  here  upon  the  produc- 
tion of  some  express  precept,  declaring  in  so  many 
terms  that  Christ  made  or  authorized  the  change. 
"Give  us  your  text"  —  "give  us  your  text"  —  "To 
the  law  and  to  the  testimony,"  is  the  confident  and 
supposed  unanswerable  demand. 

True,  the  question  is  purely  one  of  fact,  and,  as 
such,  is  to  be  authoritatively  settled  only  by  an  ap- 
peal "  to  the  law  and  to  the  testimony."  But  the  ab- 
sence of  a  text  of  the  kind  demanded,  does  by  no 
means  prove,  that  the  evidence  of  the  law  or  the  tes- 
timony is  wanting.  Moreover,  if  the  evidence  of  the 
law  were  wanting,  that  of  the  testimony,  if  clear, 
would  be  conclusive.  In  conducting  the  appeal,  then, 
"to  the  law  and  to  the  testimony,"  there  are  three 
forms  of  the  argument,  either  of  which  is  conclusive 
of  the  fact  of  the  change,  and  of  a  divine  warrant 
for  it. 

(1.)  If  we  find  an  express  precept  declaring  the 
change  made  or  authorized,  we  have  "  the  law."    If 


NATURE  OF  THE  ARGUMENT.        1Q5 

we  then  find,  in  the  history  of  Christ  and  his  early 
disciples,  distinct  traces  of  a  corresponding  practice, 
we  have  "  the  testimony ; "  and  in  the  two  united,  we 
have  the  evidence  of"  law  and  testimony."  (2.)  If  we 
find  an  express  precept  affirming  the  right  to  change 
the  day,  we  have  "the  law."  If,  then,  we  find  actual 
traces  of  such  a  change  in  the  conduct  of  those  who 
had  this  right,  we  have  "  the  testimony ; "  and  in  the 
two  united  we  have  the  evidence  again  of  "  law  and 
testimony"  both.  And,  (3.)  if  we  can  find  no  express 
precept  of  either  kind,  yet  if  we  can  trace  the  fact  of 
the  actual  change,  through  witness  after  witness,  from 
the  present  time  up  to  the  primitive  Christians  and 
the  apostles  themselves,  we  have,  then,  the  evidence 
of"  the  testimony ; "  and  in  the  character  of  the  apos- 
tles and  early  disciples,  we  have  the  proof  indispu- 
table that  such  a  change  was  never  made  by  them 
without  the  authority  of  their  Master  for  it.  And  in 
this  way,  too,  we  get,  in  the  end,  the  evidence  of"  law 
and  testimony  "  both.  "  To  the  law  and  to  the  testi- 
mony," then,  be  our  appeal. 

That  we  have  a  precept  or  a  passage  saying,  in  so 
many  terms,  that  Christ  or  the  apostles  made  the 
change  in  question,  is  not  pretended.  No  more  have 
we  a  passage  saying,  in  so  many  terms,  that  men  are 
moral  agents,  or  that  they  have  equal  rights,  or  that 
slave-holding,  slave-trading,  spirit-dealing,  and  the  like, 
are  wicked.  Are  these  things  therefore  not  wicked  ? 
Are  men  machines,  and  not  endowed  with  equal 
rights?  By  no  means.  The  mere  want  of  a  passage 
of  the  kind  proves  nothing.  There  may  be  other 
proof  as  conclusive  as  that  of  such  a  passage.    The 


106  CHANGE    OP   THE    DAY. 

first  form  of  the  appeal  "  to  the  law  and  to  the  testi- 
mony "  is  not,  therefore,  vital  to  the  argument. 

The  third  form  of  it,  though  satisfactory,  has  less 
force  than  the  second,  and  is  so  obvious  that  it  does 
not  need  expansion.  It  is  simply  this  —  the  first  day 
of  the  w^eek  has  been  observed  as  Sabbath  from  the 
apostolic  age.  This  is  proved  by  authentic  history. 
There  is  no  evidence  any  where  that  its  observance 
in  the  ages  immediately  succeeding  the  apostolic,  was 
an  innovation  on  apostoHc  and  primitive  custom. 
The  necessary  conclusion  is,  that  it  was  so  observed 
by  the  apostles  and  first  disciples  themselves.  But 
they  were  so  scrupulous  of  the  commands  of  their 
Lord,  that  they  would  never  have  set  up  such  obser- 
vance of  the  day,  except  on  his  permission  or  by  his 
authority.  Dismissing  the  first  and  third  forms  of  the 
appeal,  then,  here,  we  rest  the  argument  on  the  second. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

CHRIST'S  SANCTION   OF  THE  SABBATH  AND  ITS 
CHANGE. 

Under  the  second  form  of  the  appeal  "  to  the  law 
and  to  the  testimony,"  the  first  witness  that  we  pro- 
pose to  examine  is  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  What  ia 
the  evidence  of  the  law  and  the  testimony  in  his 
case? 

1.  Christ  had  and  claimed  the  right  to  regulate 
generally  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath.  This  we 
have  already  seen.  "  The  Son  of  man  is  Lord  even 
of  the  Sabbath-day."  But  this  right  of  regulation 
generally  was  of  course  a  right  to  change  the  day,  if 
he  saw  fit.  Here,  then,  we  have  "  the  law."  Christ's 
example,  or  actual  conduct,  will  give  us  his  "testi- 
mony."   I  remark,  then, 

2.  Christ's  example,  as  Lord  of  the  Sabbath,  is 
proof  that  it  was  no  part  of  his  design  to  abolish  the 
Sabbath,  but  to  restore  it  to  its  original  and  true  in- 
tent, and  to  change  the  day  of  its  observance,  so  as  to 
make  it  commemorative  of  his  work  of  redemption. 
AVhat  was  that  example  ?  Answer  —  Before  his  death 
and  resurrection,  i.  e.  up  to  the  period  of  the  full  intro- 
duction of  the  gospel  dispensation,  he  carefully  ob- 
served the  seventh  day  as  the  Sabbath.  After  that 
period,  beginning  with   the    resurrection  itself,  he 


108  THE    SABBATH. 

specially  honored  the  first  day  of  the  week,  as  the 
religious  day  for  his  disciples. 

(1.)  That  he  so  honored  the  seventh  day  is  most 
manifest.  Before  the  gospel  dispensation  was  fully 
introduced,  it  became  him  (Matt.  iii.  15)  "  to  fulfil  all 
righteousness"  according  to  the  law  of  Moses.  Hence 
he  was  circumcised,  and  submitted  to  other  ceremo- 
nial observances  which  were  then  in  force.  Of  course 
he  would  not  fail  to  keep  the  seventh  day  as  Sabbath. 
Hence  various  occasions  are  mentioned  in  the  evan- 
gelists upon  which  he  attended  the  regular  worship 
of  God  in  the  synagogues  on  the  Sabbath  — thus  dis- 
charging the  chief  duty  of  the  day.  Indeed,  we  learn, 
(Luke  iv.  16 ;  comp.  also  v.  31,)  that  "  he  came  to  Naza- 
reth, where  he  had  been  brought  up,  and,  as  his  custom 
waSf  he  went  into  the  synagogue  on  the  Sabbath-day, 
and  stood  up  for  to  read."  This  is  decisive  of  his 
observance  of  the  Sabbath ;  and  also  of  the  fact,  that 
it  was  not  an  occasional  matter  merely,  but  his  regu- 
lar habit.  And  tliis  continued,  for  aught  that  appears, 
to  the  day  of  his  death. 

Moreover,  when  accused,  as  he  frequently  was,  of 
violating  the  Sabbath,  he  never  plead  in  vindication, 
that,  as  Lord  of  the  Sabbath,  he  was  about  to  set  it 
aside,  and  make  all  days  aUke,  and  that  therefore  he 
might  do  the  things  alleged  with  impunity.  Not  a 
word  of  this.  On  the  contrary,  his  plea  always  was, 
that,  according  to  its  original  and  true  intent,  the 
things  done  were  not  a  violation  of  tlie  day.  He  al- 
ways plead  to  his  innocence  of  the  charge,  but  never 
based  that  plea  on  the  ground  that,  as  Lord  of  the 
Sabbath,  he  was  about  to  abrogate  it.  Nor,  indeed,  did 
he  ever,  in  any  connection,  give  a  hint  of  such  abro- 


Christ's  sanction.  109 

gation.  But  how  could  this  be,  if  abrogation  were 
his  design  ?  With  the  question  fairly  brought  to  the 
issue,  as  it  repeatedly  was  by  the  charges  of  Sabbath- 
breaking  preferred  against  him,  how,  if  abrogation 
were  his  design,  could  he  fail  to  meet  it  by  saying  so  ? 
Was  he  wont  to  cover  up  designs  and  dodge  ques- 
tions thus  ? 

Objection.  But,  if  the  Savior,  it  is  urged,  was  thus 
observant  of  the  Sabbath,  and  meant  to  perpetuate  it 
under  the  gospel  dispensation,  how  happens  it  that 
he  was  so  constantly  in  trouble  with  the  Jews  for 
breaking  it,  and  that  he  never  enjoined  its  observance 
upon  them  ? 

The  Answer  is  obvious ;  and  will  make  it  still  more 
apparent,  that  the  abrogation  of  the  Sabbath  was  no 
part  of  Christ's  design.  W^ell  (Matt.  xv.  6—9)  did 
Isaiah  prophesy  of  the  Jews  at  this  period,  "This 
people  draweth  nigh  unto  me  with  their  mouth,  and 
honoreth  me  with  their  lips;  but  their  heart  is  far 
from  me.  And  in  vain  do  they  worship  me,  teaching 
for  doctrines  the  commandments  of  men."  Their 
whole  religion  had  become  one  of  mere  external  ob- 
servances. Hence  they  had  lost  sight  of  the  real 
scope  and  spirit  of  almost  every  command  of  God, 
and,  in  multiplied  instances,  (v.  6,)  had  "  made  the  com- 
mandment of  God  of  none  effect "  by  their  "  traditions  " 
touching  the  manner  of  its  observance.  This  was 
preeminently  true  in  respect  to  the  Sabbath.  Thus, 
in  respect  to  the  prohibition  of  work  on  the  Sabbath, 
the  rabbinical  doctors  divided  works  into  principal 
and  secondary.  Each  principal  work  had  its  long 
list  of  secondary  ones  under  it,  the  doing  of  any  of 
which  was  a  violation  of  the  Sabbath.  Thus,  to 
10 


110  THE    SABBATH. 

grind  was  a  principal  work.  All  dividing  of  things 
before  united  in  their  nature  came  under  this  head. 
The  rubbing  of  the  ears  of  corn  was,  of  course,  ac- 
cording to  this  tradition,  a  violation  of  the  Sabbath. 
In  this  way  the  doctors  enumerated  some  thirty-nine 
principal  works,  with  their  subordinates.*  The  first 
eight  of  them  were  sowing,  ploughing,  reaping, 
binding,  threshing,  winnowing,  cleaning,  grinding.* 
Among  the  jDarticular  things  which  might  or  might 
not  be  done,  were  the  following:  A  man  might  not 
thresh  —  therefore  he  might  not  walk  on  the  grass, 
which  was  a  kind  of  threshing.  A  man  might  not 
hunt  on  the  Sabbath — therefore  he  might  not  catch 
a  flea  while  it  hops  about,  as  that  would  be  a  kind  of 
hunting.  Again,  he  might  not  carry  burdens  on  the 
Sabbath.  Accordingly,  though  he  might  fill  a  trough 
with  water  that  his  beasts  might  come  and  drink,  he 
might  not  carry  it  to  the  place  where  they  were.  Of 
course,  the  poor  man  that  carried  his  bed,  after  he 
was  healed,  was  a  Sabbath-breaker.  Equally  unlaw- 
ful was  it,  according  to  some  of  the  rabbins,  to  heal 
or  minister  to  the  sick  on  the  Sabbath.  A  man  with 
a  diseased  eye,  might  plaster  it  on  the  Sabbath,  for 
the  sake  of  ease  and  pleasure,  but  not  for  the  purpose 
of  healing.f  And  the  decision  of  the  school  of 
Shammai  was,  "  Let  no  one  console  the  sick  or  visit 
the  mourning  on  the  Sabbath-day."  |  Of  course,  the 
Jews  watched  Jesus  to  see  whether  he  would  heal 
on  the  Sabbath,  and  charged  him  with  breaking  it, 
when  he  did  so.    It  is  most  obvious,  then,  that  the 

*  Townsend's  Notes,  vol.  ii.  p.  86. 
t  Gurney,  on  the  Sabbath,  pp.  59,  60. 
\  TowjQsend's  Notes,  vol.  ii.  p.  87. 


Christ's  sanction.  Ill 

Jews,  at  that  time,  had  lost  sight  of  the  true  spiritual 
and  original  intent  of  the  Sahbath.  It  is  equally 
clear,  that  just  in  proportion  as  they  had  done  so, 
they  had  become  strict,  scrupulous,  and  superstitious, 
in  respect  to  its  external  observance.  Indeed,  to 
such  lengths  did  they  go  in  this  strictness,  that, 
(1  Mace,  ii,  34 — 38,)  when  Antiochus  Epiphanes  op- 
pressed Jerusalem,  B.  C.  168,  a  thousand  Jews,  who 
had  fled  to  the  wilderness,  allowed  themselves  to  be 
cut  to  pieces;  solely  because  their  enemy  attacked 
them  on  the  Sabbath.  And  afterwards,  though  self- 
defence  in  case  of  actual  assault  was  allowed,  it  was 
not  deemed  lawful  to  do  any  thing  on  that  day  to 
impede  an  enemy's  works.  Hence,  when  Pompey,  the 
Roman  general,  at  a  later  period,  besieged  Jerusalem, 
he  occupied  the  Sabbath  in  erecting  his  works  for 
assault,  and,  when  they  were  completed,  very  readily 
took  the  city.*  Indeed,  even  the  devout  women,  that 
followed  Christ  to  the  cross,  and  thence  to  the  sep- 
ulchre, (Luke  xxiii.  56,)  "returned,  and  prepared 
spices  and  ointments,  and  rested  the  Sabbath-da}'', 
according  to  the  commandment"  Nor  was  it  until 
(Luke  xxiv.  1 — 3)  the  first  day  of  the  week  had 
dawned,  that  they  presumed  to  revisit  "the  sepul- 

*  Josephus  (Antiq.  b.  14,  c.  4,  sec.  2,  3)  says,  "  Though  our 
laws  give  us  leave,  then,  (on  the  Sabbath,)  to  defend  ourselves 
against  those  that  begin  to  fight  with  us,  and  assault  us,  yet  they 
do  not  permit  us  to  meddle  with  our  enemies  while  they  do  any 
thing  else.  Which  thing,  when  the  Romans  understood,  on  those 
days  which  we  call  Sabbaths,  they  threw  nothing  at  the  Jews, 
nor  came  to  any  pitched  batde  with  them,  but  raised  up  their 
earthen  banks,  and  brought  their  engines  into  such  forwardness 
that  they  might  do  execution  the  following  days.*' 


112  THE    SiiBBATEf. 

chre,  bringing  the  spices  which  they  had  prepared  " 
for  embalming  their  Lord.  Nay,  the  very  Jews  who 
were  ready  to  imbrue  their  hands  in  the  blood  of  in- 
nocence, and  had  actually  done  it  in  effecting  the 
crucifixion  of  Christ,  were  yet  so  scrupulous  in  their 
observance  of  the  Sabbath,  that  they  would  not  on 
any  account  take  the  dead  bodies  of  himself  and  the 
thieves  down  from  the  cross  on  that  day.  Hence 
they  besought  Pilate  (John  xix.  31)  to  hasten  and 
insure  their  death  by  breaking  their  legs,  so  that  they 
might  be  taken  away  before  it. 

These  facts  furnish  a  complete  and  satisfactory 
answer  to  the  objection  before  us.  Christ  did  not 
reenjoin  it  upon  the  Jew  to  keep  the  Sabbath. 
Why  ?  Because  no  such  injunction  was  needed. 
The  time  had  not  come  to  enjoin  the  keeping  of  the 
first  day  as  Sabbath,  on  any  one.  And  as  to  keeping 
the  seventh,  a  people  who  would  not  kill  a  flea,  or 
walk  on  the  grass,  or  minister  to  the  sick,  or  who 
would  stand  still  and  be  hewed  to  pieces,  sooner  than 
violate  the  day,  surely  did  not  need  to  be  told  anew 
that  they  ought  to  keep  it.  Nor  did  they  need  any 
injunctions  to  keep  it  with  special  strictness.  On 
these  points  they  were  already  over-scrupulous,  and 
needed  no  new  instructions.  Of  course  Christ  gave 
them  none. 

But  they  did  need  to  be  recalled  to  the  true  nature 
and  original  intent  of  the  Sabbath.  The  Sabbath 
was  made  for  man,  not  man  for  the  Sabbath.  But 
by  their  traditions  concerning  the  mode  of  its  ob- 
servance they  had  reversed  the  whole  order  and  de- 
sign of  it.  They  had  lost  sight  of  its  true  nature  and 
original  design,  and  had  practically  buried  up  the 


Christ's  sanction.  113 

real  Sabbath  beneath  a  Sabbath  of  mere  external  ob- 
servances. In  many  ways,  they  had  actually  made 
the  command  of  God  —  the  real  Sabbath  —  of  none 
effect  through  their  traditions.  What,  then,  should 
be  done  ?  If  the  Sabbath  was  to  be  abrogated,  the 
thing  to  be  done  was  to  assail  it  and  its  corruptions 
in  the  lump,  as  a  thing  of  nought,  and  soon  to  be 
done  away  —  the  sooner  the  better.  Did  Christ  do 
that  ?  No.  But  if  it  were  not  to  be  abrogated,  but 
perpetuated,  then  the  thing  to  be  done  was,  to  sep- 
arate it  from  its  perversions,  that,  being  so  separated, 
the  institution  might  live  while  its  perversions  were 
dead.  But  this  could  be  done  only  by  flying  in  the 
face  of  those  traditions  that  gave  birth  to  the  peiTer- 
sions.  And  this  is  just  what  the  Savior  did.  Had 
they,  by  their  traditions,  so  perverted  the  law  of  the 
Sabbath  as  to  make  works  of  real  necessity  and 
mercy  a  violation  of  the  day?  Like  himself,  he 
boldly  denies  the  authority  of  such  traditions,  and 
tramples  on  every  custom  growing  out  of  them. 
Must  no  burdens  be  carried,  even  in  a  case  of  neces- 
sity or  mercy,  as  in  ministering  to  the  sick,  or  bring- 
ing them  to  be  healed  ?  He  heals  the  poor  man,  at 
the  pool  of  Bethesda,  (John  v.  5 — 17,)  and  bids  him 
take  his  bed  and  walk.  And  when  they  complain, 
and  charge  him  with  a  violation  of  the  Sabbath  in 
doing  so,  his  short,  impressive,  and  authoritative 
answer  is,  "'My  Father  vvorketh'  such  works  'hith- 
erto, and  I  work'  the  same.  If  he  does  works  of 
such  a  character,  why  should  not  I?"  —  Again,  must 
no  cures  be  wrought  or  attempted  on  the  Sabbath  ? 
In  repeated  instances,  he  tramples  the  tradition  under 
foot.  He  heals  the  man  (Matt.  xii.  10—13)  with  the 
10* 


114 


THE    SABBATH. 


withered  hand,  and  forestalls  their  clamor,  by  show- 
ing his  enemies,  that  on  their  own  premises,  "  it  is 
lawful  to  do  well  oq  the  Sabbath-days."  He  heals 
the  woman  (Luke  xiii.  10 — 17)  "  which  had  a  spirit 
of  infirmity  eighteen  years,  and  was  bowed  together, 
and  could  in  no  wise  lift  up  herself"  And  when  the 
ruler  of  the  synagogue  complains,  and  says  to  the 
people,  '^  There  are  six  days  in  which  men  ought  to 
work ;  in  them,  therefore,  come  and  be  healed,  and 
not  on  the  Sabbath-day,"  Christ's  bold  and  indignant 
reply,  is,  "  Thou  hypocrite  !  doth  not  each  one  of  you 
loose  his  ox  or  his  ass  from  the  stall  and  lead  him 
away  to  watering?  And  ought  not  this  woman, 
being  a  daughter  of  Abraham,  whom  Satan  hath 
bound,  lo,  these  eighteen  years,  be  loosed  from  this 
bond  on  the  Sabbath-day?"  —  And  again,  must 
pressing  hunger  go  unsupplied,  rather  than  meet 
its  demands  by  the  simple  process  of  rubbing  out  a 
few  ears  of  grain,  as  the  disciples  pass  along?  He 
justifies  them  in  the  deed,  and  tells  their  accusers, 
(Matt,  xii.  7,)  that  if  they  had  known  what  this  mean- 
eth,  "I  will  have  mercy,  and  not  sacrifice,"  they  would 
never  have  been  so  ignorant  of  the  true  intent  of  the 
Sabbath,  and  such  sticklers  for  the  outward  forms  of 
its  observance  as  to  have  condemned  the  guiltless  — 
that  "  the  Sabbath  (Mark  ii.  27)  was  made  for  man, 
and  not,"  as  their  traditions  would  make  it,  "  man  for 
the  Sabbath." 

By  this  process  the  Savior  efiectually  separated  the 
Sabbath fromits perversions.  True,  it  brought  him — and 
no  wonder  that  it  did  —  into  continual  trouble  with  the 
scribes  and  Pharisees  as  a  Sabbath-breaker.  This  is 
just  what  we  should  expect.    But  amid  all  their  col- 


Christ's  sanction. 


lisions  with  him  on  the  subject,  they  ??ever  ondt  pre*  'r'.  ^^^  ^ 
tended  that  he  held  all  days  alike,  nor  that  he  designed 
or  wished  to  do  the  Sabbath  away.  But  would  they 
not  have  done  it,  had  such  been  the  fact  ?  Yet  they 
did  not  The  whole  controversy  was,  not  whether 
the  Sabbath  was,  or  was  to  be,  but,  assuming  this, 
what  constitutes  a  violation  of  it  —  how  is  it  to  be 
kept  ?  The  truth  is,  the  whole  effort  of  the  Savior 
was  to  separate  the  Sabbath,  as  such,  from  its  perver- 
sions, not  to  abolish  it,  or  to  make  all  days  alike.  But 
why  such  separation,  except  that  the  institution  might 
live  while  its  perversions  were  dead  ?  It  was  to  rescue 
the  Sabbath  from  the  perversions  of  prevalent  tradi- 
tions, and  give  it  back  to  the  people  in  its  true  nature 
and  original  design.  Why  ?  Plainly  that  it  might 
live  and  go  down,  like  marriage,  as  a  permanent  in- 
stitution, to  the  end  of  time.  Indeed,  the  work  which 
the  Savior  did  for  the  Sabbath  was  precisely  that 
which  he  did  (Matt.  v.  and  elsewhere)  for  the  mar- 
riage institution,  with  its  conjugal  and  fihal  relations, 
and  the  laws  of  their  observance,  and  for  other  laws 
of  acknowledged  authority  and  perpetuity  under  the 
gospel.  It  was  a  work,  too,  which  he  n£ver  did  for  cir- 
cumcision or  for  any  other  institution  or  ordinance, 
purely  Jewish,  and  not  designed  to  co7itinue  under  the 
gospel  dispensation.  When  he  rescued  the  marriage 
institution,  and  the  law  of  life,  from  the  perversions  of 
Jewish  tradition,  did  he  mefin  to  hand  them,  so  res- 
cued, down  to  us,  as  of  permanent  existence  and  per- 
petual obligation  ?  —  as  part  and  parcel  of  the  gospel 
itself?  What  less  than  this  could  he  mean,  when,  at 
the  risk  of  life  as  a  Sabbath-breaker,  he  so  rescued 
the  Sabbath  ?    Indeed,  what  was  such  a  rescue  of  it 


116  THE    CHANGE. 

but  an  emphatic  injunction  to  observe  it,  as  rescued  ? 
While  this  view,  then,  solves  the  objection,  how  obvi- 
ous does  it  make  it,  that  it  was  no  part  of  Christ's  de- 
sign to  abrogate  the  Sabbath,  but  rather  his  design  to 
perpetuate  it! 

But,  {2.)  having  thus  rescued  the  Sabbath,  as  an 
institution,  from  its  perversions,  and  having  honored 
the  seventh  as  Sabbath-day  up  to  the  time  of  his  death, 
is  there  any  evidence  that,  after  his  resurrection, 
and  the  consequent  full  introduction  of  the  new  dis- 
pensation, Christ  put  similar  honor  on  the  first  day  of 
the  week  ?  Luke  informs  us,  (Acts  i.  3,)  that  after 
his  passion  he  appeared  to  his  disciples,  at  different 
times,  for  the  space  of  forty  days,  and  spake  to  them 
^Hhe  things  pertaining  to  the  kingdom^  At  some  of 
these  interviews,  among  the  things  pertaining  to  the 
kingdom,  Christ  either  authorized  a  change  of  the 
Sabbath  from  the  seventh  to  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
or  he  did  not.  If  he  did  not,  the  reason  was,  (John 
xvi.  12, 13,)  "  I  have  yet  many  things  to  say  unto  you, 
but  ye  cannot  bear  them  now ;  howbeit  when  he  the 
Spirit  of  truth  is  come,  he  will  guide  you  into  all 
truth."  The  business  of  prescribing  the  arrange- 
ments for  the  future  order  and  worship  of  the  church, 
he  had  already  devolved,  as  we  shall  see,  upon  his 
apostles,  as  a  matter  to  be  specially  attended  to  by 
them,  when,  after  his  departure,  the  Comforter  should 
come,  who  was  to  guide  them  into  all  truth,  and  en- 
due them  with  power  from  on  high.  If,  therefore, 
Christ  did  not  himself  make  the  change  in  question, 
during  this  period  of  forty  days,  it  was  because  this 
was  one  of  the  things  which  belonged,  by  his  express 
authority,  to  the  apostles  to  do.    And  in  this  case  we 


Christ's  sanction.  117 

are  to  look,  for  the  first  decisive  indications  of  the 
change,  to  them  and  their  histoiy,  rather  than  to  the 
conduct  and  history  of  Christ  himself. 

The  same  is  true,  if,  in  the  interviews  in  question, 
Christ  did  personally  authorize  the  change.  For  the 
great  object  of  those  interviews  plainly  was,  to  make 
his  disciples  more  fully  acquainted  with  his  real 
character  and  dignity,  to  establish  beyond  all  question 
the  fact  of  his  actual  resurrection,  and  to  commission 
and  invest  them  with  authority  for  their  future  work. 
Hence,  on  his  way  to  Emmaus,  (Luke  xxiv.  27,)  "  be- 
ginning at  Moses  and  all  the  prophets,  he  expounded 
unto  them,  in  all  the  Scriptures,  the  things  concerning 
himself"  Hence,  in  the  record  of  the  several  inter- 
views, we  hear  almost  nothing  in  detail  of  what  "  the 
things,"  of  which  he  spake,  "  pertaining  to  the  king- 
dom," were.  We  have  the  simple  commission  to  go 
into  all  the  world  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every 
creature,  with  its  accompanying  authority.  We  have, 
then,  a  full  and  minute  account  of  those  occun^ences 
and  remarks  which  put  the  fact  of  his  resurrection  and 
personal  identity  beyond  dispute.  And  further  than 
this,  we  have  almost  no  account  of  what  passed  at 
the  mterviews  in  question.  The  great  object  of  the 
record^  whatever  may  have  been  that  of  the  inter- 
views, was  to  make  clear  the  fact  of  the  resurrection. 
This  was  the  great  question,  —  that,  indeed,  on  which 
hinged  every  other.  To  settle  this  was  of  course  the 
great  object.  If,  then,  in  these  interviews,  Christ  did 
personally  authorize  the  change  in  question,  we  are 
not  to  expect,  in  a  record  so  brief,  and  made  for  such 
a  purpose,  a  formal  and  full-length  mention  of  it,  but 


118  THE    CHANGE. 

only  a  mention  of  such  occurrences  and  facts  as  are 
in  keeping  with  and  not  contradictory  of  it.  Such  a 
mention  we  have. 

Previous  to  his  death,  as  we  have  seen,  Christ  was 
in  the  regular  and  habitual  observance  of  the  seventh, 
as  Sabbath-day.  Afterward,  when,  by  his  death  and 
resurrection,  the  old  dispensation  was  fully  at  an  end, 
and  the  new  one  fully  introduced,  we  never  find  him 
in  the  synagogue  or  meeting  with  his  disciples  for 
religious  purposes  on  that  day.  But  he  did  meet 
with  them  for  such  purposes  on  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  and  in  other  ways  he  specially  honored  that 
day.  He  rose  fi-om  the  dead  on  that  day.  Four 
times,  on  the  same  day,  he  manifested  himself  to  his 
disciples ;  first  (Matt,  xxviii.  9)  to  the  women  who 
held  him  by  the  feet  and  worshipped ;  then  (Luke 
xxiv.  34)  to  Peter;  then  (Luke  xxiv.  18 — 33)  to  the 
two  disciples  on  their  way  to  Emrnaus,  when  he  ex- 
pounded to  them  "the  things  concerning  himself," 
and  was  made  known  to  them  in  the  breaking  of 
bread ;  and,  lastly,  (John  xx.  19 — ^23,)  to  the  ten  apostles, 
when,  after  showing  them  his  hands  and  side,  and  so 
verifying  his  resurrection,  he  said,  "As  my  Father 
hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you,"  and,  breathing  on 
them,  added,  "  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost.  Whose 
soever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  unto  them ; 
and  whose  soever  sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained." 
In  these  two  interviews,  Christ  gave  the  disciples, 
first,  an  exposition  of  the  Scriptures  concerning  him- 
self; next  the  evidence  of  his  resurrection ;  then  the 
commission,  "as  my  Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so 
Bend  1  you ; "  and  then  the  investment  of  them  with 


Christ's  sanction.  119 

authority  to  instruct,  and  to  regulate  the  order,  insti- 
tutions, and  worship  of  the  church  under  the  new  dis- 
pensation. Now,  on  the  supposition  that  this  was 
the  first  of  Christian  Sabbaths,  and  that  subse- 
quently this  day  of  the  week  was  to  be  the  Sabbath- 
day  of  the  church,  what  could  be  more  appropriate 
to  the  occasion  than  such  instruction,  such  a  com- 
mission, and  such  an  investment  of  authority  fj'om 
him  who  was  at  the  same  time  Head  of  the  church 
and  Lord  of  the  Sabbath?  Considered  as  one  whole, 
what  were  all  these  various  items  but  the  full  and 
formal  introduction  of  the  gospel  kingdom  ?  Before, 
by  John  the  Baptist  and  others,  it  had  been  an- 
nounced as  being  "  at  hand.^'*  Now,  in  the  resurrection 
of  its  Lord,  in  his  manifestation  of  himself  to  his  dis- 
ciples, in  his  commission  of  them  to  act  for  him,  and 
in  his  investment  of  them  with  the  authority  named, 
it  had  fully  come,  and  was  officially  introduced.  It 
was  done,  too,  on  the  first  day  of  the  week.  How 
fitting  to  have  it  done  then,  if  that  day  was  thereafter 
to  be  the  Sabbath  of  the  church ! 

Again,  if  this  were  the  first  of  Christian  Sabbaths, 
the  second  would  occur  on  the  next  first  day  of  the 
week ;  and  on  that  day,  therefore,  we  should  naturally 
expect  to  find  Christ  and  the  disciples  together  again. 
Such  seems  to  have  been  the  fact.  When  one  event 
happened  a  week  after  another,  the  Jews  sometimes 
called  the  whole  period  "a?i  eig-M  c?a?/5"  — including 
in  their  reckoning  both  the  days  on  which  the  events 
in  question  occurred.  Accordingly,  when  we  read, 
(John  XX.  26,)  "And  after  eight  days,  again  his  disci- 
ples were  within,'-  &c.,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that 


130  THE    CHANGE. 

it  was  on  the  next  first  day.*  Mr.  Gurney  thinks  that 
the  ascension  was  on  the  first  day  of  the  week.f  And 
it  is  quite  certain  that  the  descent  of  the  Comforter 
was  upon  that  day. 

The  disciples  were  commanded  by  their  Lord  to 
tarry  at  Jerusalem  until  they  were  "endued  with 
power  from  on  high,"  being  assured,  at  the  same  time, 
that  this  should  be  "  not  many  days  hence."  Then 
followed  the  ascension ;  then,  in  the  exercise  of  the 
authority  conferred  upon  them,  the  appointment  of 
Matthias  to  the  apostleship  in  the  place  of  Judas ;  and 
then  the  waiting  for  the  promised  Comforter.  This 
Comforter  was  to  be  to  them  in  the  place  of  Christ. 
He  was  to  guide  them  into  all  truth.    He  was  to 

*  Hammond,  Gill,  GrotiuS;  &c.,  in  loc.  5  and  compare  Luke 
ix.  28  with  Matt.  xvii.  1;  and  Mark  ix.  2. 

t  Mr.  Gurney  says,  pp.  78,  79;  "  The  period  which  elapsed  be- 
tween our  Lord^s  resurrection  and  ascension,  is  described  d^s  forty 
days.  Acts  i.  3.  This  is  a  period  of  which  frequent  mention  is  made 
m  the  sacred  history.  The  flood  was  forty  days  upon  the  earth  5 
Moses  was  forty  days  in  the  mount  3  Elijah  went  forty  days  in 
the  strength  of  the  meat  which  the  angel  provided  for  him  j  Christ 
fasted  forty  days  in  the  wilderness.  Now,  as  the  Hebrews  were 
accustomed  to  reckon  their  time  by  weeks,  —  from  Sabbath  to 
Sabbath,  —  it  seems  very  probable  that  the  term  forty  days  de- 
notes a  round  number,  and  is  in  fact  a  mere  synonyme  for  six 
Sabbaths  or  weeks.  If  so,  the  ascension  took  place  six  weeks 
after  the  resurrection,  and  therefore  on  the  first  day  of  the  week. 
This  conclusion  is  in  some  measure  confirmed  by  the  very  fact 
that  the  disciples  were  then  assembled  3  for  not  only  do  we  find 
them  meeting  together  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  twice  before 
this  event,  but  we  shall  presently  see  that  they  maintained  the 
same  practice  on  the  very  week  following." 


Christ's  sanction.  141 

qualify  them  for  the  work  to  which  Christ  had  com- 
missioned them.  He  was  to  direct  them  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  their  authority,  to  instruct  and  to  regulate 
the  order,  institutions,  and  worship  of  the  church. 
He  was  to  be,  in  all  these  respects,  the  same  to  them 
as  a  present  Christ.  So  that  under  his  guidance  their 
instructions  would  be  as  correct,  and  the  order,  in- 
stitutions, and  worship,  they  should  prescribe  for  the 
church,  as  wise  and  authoritative  as  if  they  were 
under  the  immediate  personal  guidance  of  Christ 
himself  "  And  when  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  fully 
come,  they  were  all  with  one  accord  in  one  place. 
And  there  appeared  unto  them  cloven  tongues  like 
as  of  fire,  and  it  sat  upon  each  of  them,  and  they 
were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  began  to 
speak  with  other  tongues,  as  the  Spirit  gave  them 
utterance."  This  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  on 
them,  like  his  descent  on  Christ  at  his  baptism,  was 
their  public  anointing  to  the  work  which  Christ  be- 
gan, and  which  he  had  now  devolved  on  them  to 
carry  out  and  complete.  It  was,  like  his,  their  offi- 
cial recognition  and  introduction  to  it.  It  was  also 
the  formal  and  public  commitment  of  the  work  to 
them,  and  the  pledge  that  they  would  do  their  part 
of  it,  as  Christ  had  his,  according  to  the  mind  and  will 
of  God.  And  all  this  transpired  on  the  first  day  of 
the  week  —  "  the  Lord's  day."  Christ's  last  paschal 
supper  was  on  the  evening  of  the  fifth  day  of  the 
week.  That  fifth  day  was  the  14th  of  the  month 
Nisan,  on  which  the  passover  was  slain.  Christ  was 
crucified  on  the  sixth  day.  The  seventh  day  was  of 
course  the  second  of  the  feast,  and  was  the  day  on 
11 


122 


THE    CHANGE. 


which  the  wave-sheaf  was  offered  to  the  Lord. 
Pentecost  (Lev.  xxiii.  15,  16)  was  fifty  days  after 
this.  And  as  this  was  on  the  seventh  day,  the  forty- 
ninth  day  from  that  was  the  seventh  Sabbath,  and 
the  next,  or  fiftieth  day,  was  of  course  the  first  day 
of  the  week.  The  immediate  result  of  this  anointing 
was,  that  the  apostles,  especially  Peter,  preached  with 
such  power,  that  about  three  thousand  souls  were 
added  to  the  church  on  that  single  day.  It  was  em- 
phatically the  begmning  of  days  to  the  infant  church. 
And  thus  was  the  first  day  of  the  week  again  hon- 
ored and  blessed  of  him  who  was  at  once  Head  of 
the  church,  and  Lord  of  the  Sabbath. 

Here,  then,  to  say  nothing  of  the  intermediate  in- 
terviews, we  have,  in  the  first  instance,  the  resurrec- 
tion, the  exposition  of  the  Scriptures  concerning 
himself,  the  evidence  of  the  identity  of  his  resurrec- 
tion body,  the  commission  of  the  disciples,  and  their 
investment  with  apostolic  authority;  and,  in  the 
second  instance,  that  of  Pentecost,  the  mission  of 
the  Comforter,  with  all  of  official  recognition  and 
endowment  that  it  involved.  And  what  are  all  these 
occurrences,  but  just  what  we  should  expect  them  to 
be,  on  the  supposition  that  Christ  meant  to  honor  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  as,  by  way  of  eminence,  the 
day  of  religious  worship  under  the  new  order  of 
things  ?  The  events  in  question  had  more  imme- 
diate and  direct  concern  with  the  establishment  and 
progress  of  the  new  religion,  than  any  other.  They 
were,  in  fact,  its  official,  formal,  and  full  introduction, 
in  the  first  instance  to  the  disciples,  and  in  the  second 
to  the  world.    Why  should  they,  in  both  cases,  trans- 


Christ's  sanction.  123 

pire  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  except  it  were  that 
he,  who,  as  Head  of  the  church,  was,  in  these  events, 
officially  and  fully  instituting  a  new  dispensation,  was 
also,  as  Lord  of  the  Sabbath,  instituting  a  new  day  as 
Sabbath-day  for  his  people  —  a  day  to  be  thencefor- 
ward observed  by  them,  in  distinction  from  other 
days,  as  "Lord's  Day"? 


CHAPTER    XII. 

THE    SANCTION   OF    THE    APOSTLES    AND    THE 
PRIMITIVE   CHURCH. 

What  is  the  evidence  of  the  "  law  and  the  testi- 
mony" in  the  case  of  the  apostles  and  primitive 
disciples?    First,  what  was  "THE  LAW"? 

Answer.  Christ  gave  his  apostles  express  authority^ 
to  regulate  the  faith,  institutions,  order,  and  worship  of 
the  church,  and  declared  that  whatever  they  might  teach  or 
yrescrihe  in  the  case  should  he  authoritative  and  binding. 
On  a  certain  occasion,  (Matt.  xvi.  13 — 19,)  Christ  in- 
quired of  his  disciples,  "  Whom  do  men  say  that  I,  the 
Son  of  man,  am  ?  "  And  when  Peter  said,  in  reply^ 
"  Thou  art  the  Christy  the  Son  of  the  living  God>"  he 
eommended  him,  and  declared,  "  Upon  this  rock  I  will 
build  my  church  ;  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  pre- 
vail against  it.  And  I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt 
bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven ;  and  what- 
soever thou  shalt  loose  on  eai'th  shall  be  loosed  in 
heaven."  On  another  occasion,  (Matt,  xviii.  18,)  when 
the  discipline  of  the  church  was  the  topic  of  dis- 
course, Christ  said  to  all  the  apostles,  as  he  had  be- 
fore said  to  Peter,  "Whatsoever  ye  shall  bind  on 
eai-th  shall  be  bound  in  heaven,  and  whatsoever  ye 
shall  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven."    Both 


THE    CHANGE.  125 

these  occasions  were  previous  to  his  death.  After- 
ward, (John  XX.  21,  22,)  on  the  evening  of  the  day  of 
his  resurrection,  he  commissioned  them  to  the  apos- 
toHc  w^ork,  saying,  "  As  my  Father  hath  sent  me,  even 
so  send  I  you."  Then,  investing  them  with  apostolic 
authority,  "he  breathed  on  them,  and  said.  Receive 
ye  the  Holy  Ghost.  Whose  soever  sins  ye  remit,  they 
are  remitted  unto  them;  and  whose  soever  sins  ye 
retain,  they  are  retained." 

What  do  these  passages  of  Scripture  teach  ?  That 
they  do  not  teach  the  Romish  doctrine  of  the  suprem- 
acy of  St.  Peter,  is  obvious ;  because  the  same  power 
or  authority  conferred  on  him  in  the  first  passage,  is, 
in  the  others,  conferred  on  all  the  apostles.  Equally 
obvious  is  it  that  they  did  not  confer  the  power  of 
pardoning  sin,  in  the  proper  sense  of  that  phrase, 
because  that  is  the  prerogative  of  God  only.  How, 
then,  are  they  to  be  understood  ?  A  ready  and  satis- 
factoiy  answer  is  found  in  the  usage  of  the  times  and 
the  circumstances  of  the  case. 

The  phrase  "to  bind  and  to  loose"  was  used  by  the 
Jews  in  the  sense  of  to  prohibit  and  to  permit,  or  to 
teach  what  is  prohibited  and  what  permitted.  Thus 
they  said  of  gathering  wood  on  the  Sabbath,  "  The 
school  of  Shammai  binds  it "  —  i.  e.  prohibits  it,  or 
teaches  that  it  is  prohibited;  and  "the  school  of 
Hillel  looses  it "  —  i.  e.  permits  it,  or  teaches  that  it  is 
permitted.  Lightfoot,  in  his  Exercitations  on  Mat- 
thew, produces  many  instances  of  this  use  of  the 
phrase.  Schoetgen,  in  his  Hor.  Heb.  vol.  i.  p.  145,  6, 
adds  many  more  —  all  showing  that,  according  to 
Jewish  usage  at  the  time,  to  loose  and  to  bind  sig- 
nified to  pronounce  authoritatively  what  was  lawlul 
11* 


126  THE  change; 

and  unlawful,  clean  and  unclean,  condemned  and 
allowed,  according  to  Mosaic  law.  The  phrase  was 
manifestly  a  professional  phrase  —  a  kind  of  theologi- 
cal technic,  applied  to  the  rabbis,  or  teachers  whose 
business  it  was  to  expound  the  law,  and  well  under- 
stood as  meaning,  not  only  that  they  taught  what  was 
prohibited  and  what  allowed  by  the  law,  but  that 
their  teaching  was  authoritative,  and  therefore  bind- 
ing on  the  people.  Hence  the  declaration  of  the  Sa- 
vior, (Matt,  xxiii.  2 — 4,) "  The  scribes  and  the  Pharisees 
sit  in  Moses'  seat;"  —  officially  they  teach  by  au- 
thority ;  —  "  all,  therefore,  whatsoever  they  bid  you 
observe  and  do,  that  observe  and  do ;  but  do  not 
after  their  works ;  for  they  say,  and  do  not.  For," 
so  rigid  are  they  in  their  exposition  and  enforcement 
of  the  law  on  others,  that  "  they  bind  heavy  burdens, 
and  grievous  to  be  borne,  and  lay  them  on  men's 
shoulders,"  while,  at  the  same  time,  they  themselv^es 
are  so  lax  in  its  observance,  that  "  they  will  not  move 
them  with  one  of  their  fingers."  Here,  then,  we  have 
this  very  power  of  binding,  recognized  by  the  Savior 
as  residing,  in  the  sense  explained,  in  the  scribes 
and  Pharisees ;  and  residing  there,  not  because  they 
exercised  it  properly,  but  because  they  were  the  oc- 
cupiers of  Moses'  seat,  and,  therefore,  officially,  the 
authorized  and  authoritative  expounders  of  the  law. 
Of  course,  while  Moses  remained  in  force,  it  was 
their  official  duty  and  prerogative,  under  him,  to  bind 
and  to  loose  —  i.  e.  {for  such  is  the  meaning)  to  teach 
authoritatively  what  loas  prohibited  and  ivhxd  allowed  by 
Mosaic  law. 

But  the  time  was  at  hand,  and  in  the  last  case  had 
actually  ai-rived,  when  Moses  was  to  give  place  to 


APOSTOLIC    AUTHORITY.  127 

Christ,  and  those  whose  official  business  it  was  to 
bind  and  loose  under  the  old  dispensation  were  to  be 
succeeded  by  those  whose  official  business  it  should 
be  to  bind  and  to  loose  under  the  new.  The  first 
passage,  then,  under  consideration,  which,  with  the 
second,  was  uttered  in  anticipation  of  this  change,  is 
as  if  the  Savior  had  said,  "  I  am  the  Christ,  the  Son 
of  the  living  God,"  as  you,  Peter,  have  confessed. 
"Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Barjona;  for  flesh  and 
blood  hath  not  revealed  this  unto  thee,  but  my  Father 
which  is  in  heaven."  And  now,  as  my  Father  hath 
thus  honored  you  in  giving  you  a  full  apprehension 
of  my  character  and  kingdom  before  your  fellow- 
disciples,  I  also  will  honor  you  in  the  same  manner. 
"Thou  art  rock;  and  upon  this  rock  will  I  build  my 
church.  And  I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys  of  it." 
It  shall  be  your  high  honor  to  be  first  in  laying  its 
foundations,  and  in  opening  the  doors  of  it  to  the 
world.  As  you  have  been  the  first  to  apprehend  and 
confess  to  me  the  great  truth  just  announced,  you 
shall  be  the  first  to  proclaim  it,  in  all  its  fulness,  to 
the  Jews,  (as  he  did  on  Pentecost,)  and  to  the  Gen- 
tiles, (as  he  did  at  Cornelius'  house  ;)  and  so  the  first 
to  make  known  the  gospel  and  lay  the  foundations  of 
my  church  on  earth.  And  when  this  is  done,  in 
common  with  your  fellow-disciples,  you  shall  have 
the  same  official  power  of  binding  and  loosing  under 
the  new  dispensation  which  those  who  sit  in  Moses' 
seat  have  had  under  the  old.  It  shall  be  yours,  under 
my  guidance  and  that  of  the  Comforter,  to  teach  what 
is  lawful  and  what  unlawful  in  my  church.  And 
whatsoever  you  so  "  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in 
heaven ;  and  whatsoever  you "  (so)  "  loose  on  earth 


133  THE    CHANGE. 

shall  be  loosed  in   heaven."      Your  teaching  shall 
be  authoritative  and  binding. 

The  second  passage  gives  the  same  authority  to  all 
the  apostles,  in  respect  to  the  subject  of  discipline  in 
the  church.  And  the  last  passage  is  as  if  the  Sa- 
vior had  said  —  Now  my  work  is  done.  I  have 
tasted  death  for  all.  Redemption  is  complete,  and 
the  way  open  for  the  visible  and  official  introduction 
of  my  church  to  the  world.  The  "  corner  stone  "  is 
laid.  It  only  remains  more  fully  to  instruct  my  fol- 
lowers and  the  world  in  respect  to  the  nature  and 
design  of  my  kingdom,  and  the  conditions  of  salva- 
tion, and  more  specifically  to  prescribe  the  order, 
institutions,  discipline,  and  worship  of  my  church. 
This  work  I  now  commit  to  you.  "  As  my  Father 
hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you."  This  is  your 
commission.  And  as  the  evidence  of  your  authority, 
and  the  pledge  of  your  being  under  the  infallible 
guidance  of  God  in  what  you  teach  and  prescribe, 
"Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost."  When  he  is  come, 
(John  xvi.  14,)  "  He  shall  receive  of  mine,  and  shall 
show  it  unto  you."  He  will  also  (John  xiv.  26) 
"teach  you  all  things,  and  bring  all  things  to  your 
remembrance,  whatsoever  I  have  said  unto  you." 
He  will  even  (John  xvi.  13)  "show  you  things  to 
come."  Under  his  infallible  guidance,  then,  go  for- 
w^ard  to  the  work  I  have  assigned  you.  Order  all  the 
affairs  of  the  church.  Prescribe  her  order,  institu- 
tions, worship.  Declare  to  all  on  what  terms,  to 
what  characters  and  temper  of  mind,  God  will  extend 
the  forgiveness  of  sin.  Establish  thus,  in  all  the 
churches,  the  conditions  on  which  men  may  be  par- 
doned.   In  extraordinaiy  cases,  pronounce  the  judg- 


APOSTOLIC    AUTHORITY.  12^ 

ment  of  God  on  presumptuous  and  gross  offenders. 
And  "  whose  soever  sins  ye  "  so  "  remit,  they  are  re- 
mitted unto  them ;  and  whose  soever  sins  ye"  so  "re- 
tain, they  are  retained."  What  you  do  shall  be  in 
my  name  and  by  my  authority. 

And  that  this  was  the  kind  of  power  or  authority 
conferred  by  Christ,  in  these  passages,  on  the  apos- 
tles, is  proved  by  the  fact  that  it  is  the  very  power  or 
authority  which  they  actually  exercised.  (1.)  They 
gave  full  and  explicit  instruction  in  respect  to  the 
nature  and  design  of  the  gospel  kingdom,  the  truths 
of  Christianity,  and  the  terms  of  salvation;  and 
claimed  to  do  it  by  authority.  Hence  the  fearful 
malediction  of  Paul,  (Gal.  i.  8,  12,)  "  Though  we,  or 
an  angel  from  heaven,  preach  any  other  gospel  unto 
you  than  that  which  we  have  preached  unto  you,  let 
him  be  accursed."  And  the  reason  assigned  for  it 
was,  "  For  I  neither  received  it  of  man,  neither  was 
I  taught  it  of  man,  but  by  the  revelation  of  Jesus 
Christ;"  i.  e.  I  taught  it  by  authoi'ity.  (2.)  With 
equal  authority  they  pronounced  the  judgments  of 
God,  in  extraordinary  cases,  on  bold  and  presumptu- 
ous transgressors.  Ananias  and  Sapphira  were  smit- 
ten dead.  Hymeneus  and  Alexander,  for  their  heresy, 
(2  Tim.  ii.  18,)  were  "delivered"  (1  Tim.  i.  20)  "unto 
Satan,  that  they  might  learn  not  to  blaspheme."  See 
also  the  rebuke  of  Simon  Magus,  (Acts  viii.  18 — ^24,) 
and  the  judgment  of  the  incestuous  person.  (1  Cor.  v. 
3 — 5.)  Finally,  (3.)  they  ordered  all  the  affairs  of  the 
church  in  the  same  manner.  In  respect  to  its  officerSy 
they  directed  the  choice  (Acts  vi.  3)  of  deacons,  and 
appointed  them  to  their  office.  Wherever  they  went, 
(Acts  xiv.  23,)  they  "  ordained  them  elders  in  every 


130  THE    CHANGE. 

church."  See  also  Titus  i.  5,  and  ii.  15.  They  di- 
rected also  the  discipline  of  the  church,  as  in  the  case 
of  the  incestuous  person,  (1  Cor.  v.  13,)  "  Put  away 
from  among  yourselves  that  wicked  person."  They 
gave  order  in  respect  to  her  charities,  (1  Cor.  xvi.  1,) 
"  Now,  concerning  the  collection  for  the  saints,  as  1 
have  given  order  to  the  churches  of  Galatia,  even  so 
do  ye."  They  corrected  abuses,  and  prescribed  the 
proper  mode  (1  Cor.  xi.  20 — 30)  of  observing  the 
Lord's  supper,  and  (1  Cor.  xi.  1 — 20,  and  xiv.  23 — 40) 
of  conducting  the  meetings  of  the  church ;  and  said 
Paul,  in  reference  to  these  regulations,  (v.  37,)  "If  any 
man  think  himself  to  be  a  prophet,  or  spiritual,  let 
him  acknowledge  that  the  things  that  I  write  unto 
you  are  the  commandments  of  the  LordJ'^  They  pre- 
scribed in  like  manner  the  rites  and  ceremonies,  or 
observances,  of  the  church.  In  council  assembled, 
they  (Acts  xv.  24,  29)  assured  the  Gentile  converts 
that  they  need  not  be  circumcised,  and  keep  the 
ritual  law,  but  only  that  they  abstain  from  meats 
offered  to  idols,  and  from  blood,  &c.  In  a  word,  they 
regulated,  throughout,  the  faith,  the  institutions,  the 
order,  the  worship  of  the  church.  And  their  uniform 
language,  in  all  of  their  instructions  and  regulations, 
was  that  of  command  and  authority.  "  So  ordain  1," 
says  Paul,  (1  Cor.  vii.  17,)  "  in  all  the  churches."  And, 
(2  Thess.  ii.  15,  and  iii.  6,)  "  Therefore,  brethren,  stand 
fast,  and  hold  the  traditions  which  ye  have  been 
taught,  whether  by  word  or  our  epistle,"  and  "we 
command  you,  in  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
that  ye  withdraw  yourselves  from  every  brother  that 
walketh  disorderly,  and  not  after  the  tradition  which 
ye  received  of  us."    And  says  Peter,  (2  Pet  iii  1,  2,), 


PRIMITIVE    WORSHIP,  131 

"I  write  unto  you  that  ye  may  be  mindful  of  the 
commandment  of  us,  the  apostles  of  the  Lord  and  Sa- 
vior." It  is  settled,  then,  beyond  dispute,  that  the 
power  to  bind  and  to  loose,  conferred  on  the  apostles 
by  Christ,  was  the  power  to  teach  and  to  order  au- 
thoritatively  in  all  the  affairs  of  the  church.  Here  we 
have  "/Ae  Zatr." 

The  question  now  is.  What  is  « the  TESTIMONY  "  ? 
Did  the  apostles,  in  the  exercise  of  this  power,authorize 
a  change  of  the  Sabbath  from  the  seventh  to  the  first  day 
of  the  week?  If  they  did,  the  change  is  as  authorita- 
tive and  binding  as  if  made  by  Christ  himself  Whether 
they  did  or  not  is  a  question  of  fact,  which  must  be 
determined  by  an  appeal  to  "the  testimony."  The 
testimony  is  of  course  of  two  kinds  —  that  of  the 
Scripture  record,  and  that  of  authentic  ecclesiastical 
history.  Our  first  inquiry  is,  What  is  the  testimony, 
according  to  the  Scripture  record  ? 

1.  The  apostles  and  early  disciples  were  in  the 
habit  of  meeting  together,  at  stated  TiMBS,fo7' public 
religious  worship.  This  none  will  deny  —  "  Not  forsak- 
ing the  assembling  of  yourselves  together,  as  the  man- 
ner of  some  is."  See  also  1  Cor.  xiv.  23,  where  Paul 
speaks  of  "  the  2vhole  church  as  coming  together  into 
one  place,^''  It  is  equally  obvious,  that  the  exercises  of 
these  meetings  were  prayer  and  the  various  kinds  of 
religious  instruction,  (see  1  Cor.  xi.  1 — 16,  and  xiv. 
23 — 40 ;)  exhortation,  (see  Rom.  xii.  8 ;  1  Thess.  v.  11 ; 
Titus  ii.  15 ;)  singing,  (see  Col.  iii.  16 ;  Ephes.  v.  19 ;) 
the  observance  of  the  Lord's  supper,  (1  Cor.  xi. 
20 — 34,)  and  such  other  things  as  were  appropriately 
a  part  of  public  religious  worship.  Some  of  these 
meetings  were  occupied  chiefly  with  prayer,  praise, 


132 


THE    CHANGE. 


exhortation,  and  instruction.  At  others  the  special 
object  of  the  meeting  was  the  observance  of  the 
Lord's  supper  —  "the  breaking  of  bread,"  as  it  was 
sometimes  termed.  And  when  the  object  was  the  ob- 
servance of  the  supper,  the  meetings  were  as  truly  the 
pubHc  religious  meetings  of  the  church  as  were  any 
others.  The  breaking  of  bread  on  the  occasion  was 
not  the  usual  expression  of  Christian  hospitality  and 
kindness.  Nor  was  it  done  at  their  private  houses, 
but  in  the  usual  place  of  public  worship — "What, 
{1  Cor.  xi.  22,  34,)  have  ye  not"  (private)  "houses 
to  eat  and  to  drink  "  (your  ordinary  meals) "  in  ?  If  any 
man  hunger,  let  him  eat  at  home,"  (and  not  turn  the 
Lord's  supper  into  a  common  meal  or  a  season  of 
riot,)  "that  ye  come  not  together"  (in  your  place  of 
public  worship,  to  eat  the  Lord's  supper)  "  unto  con- 
demnation." The  observance  of  the  ordinance  was 
moreover  accompanied  with  thanksgiving,  prayer,  re- 
ligious insti-uction,  and  singing.  Thus,  at  its  first  in- 
stitution, when  Christ  sat  down  to  the  passover  with 
his  disciples,  (Luke  xxii.  16 — 18,)  he  declared  that  he 
would  not  eat  of  that  again  until  it  was  fulfilled  in  the 
kingdom  of  God.  He  then  took  the  passover  cup,  and 
"  gave  thanks,"  &c.,  adding  that  he  would  not  drink  of 
that  again  until  the  kingdom  of  God  had  come.  He  then 
gave  tliem  instruction  on  various  topics  —  especially 
his  death,  and  the  full  introduction  of  his  kingdom. 
He  informed  them,  (John  xiii.  31,  32,)  that  the  hour 
was  at  hand  when  the  "Son  of  man"  should  be 
"  glorified,"  and,  in  anticipation  of  that  hour,  he  said, 
(Luke  xxii.  29,  30,)  "1  appoint  unto  you  a  kingdom, 
as  my  Father  hath  appointed  unto  me,  that  ye  may 


PRIMITIVE    WORSHIP.  133 

eat  and  drink  at  my  table  in  my  kingdom."  And 
then,  instituting  his  table,  as  that  which  was  to  super- 
sede the  passover,  he  (Mark  xiv.  22,  23)  "  took  bread 
and  blessed  it,"  and  afterwards  "took  the  cup  and 
gave  thanks."  Then  followed  other  instructions, 
(John  xiv.  1—30,)  after  which  (Matt.  xxvi.  30)  "  they 
sung  a  hymn,"  and  then  "  went  out  into  the  mount  of 
Olives."*  In  like  manner,  the  first  disciples  (Acts 
ii.  42)  continued  steadfastly  in  communion  together, 
"  and  in  breaking  of  bread,  and  in  prayers J^  And  sub- 
sequently, (Acts  XX.  7,)  "  when  they  ^ame  together  to 
break  bread,  Paul  preached  unto  them."  From  all* 
which  it  is  obvious  that  the  meetings  for  the  obser- 
vance of  the  supper  were  as  truly  meetings  of  the 
church  for  public  worship  as  were  any  other.  And 
that  tJiese  meetings  were  held  regularly  every  first  day 
of  the  week,  is  proved  by  the  whole  current  of  eccle- 
siastical history.f  The  observance  of  Lord's  sup- 
per was  as  regular  as  the  return  of  Lord's  day,  and 
was  so  far  a  regular  observance  of  the  day  itselfj  as  a 
day  for  public  religious  worship. 

But  these,  as  well  as  the  other  religious  meetings 
of  the  church,  it  is  said,  were  also  held  on  other  days 
of  the  week,  as  occasion  might  offer  or  convenience 
allow.  Be  it  so  ;  and  what  then  ?  The  same  is  true 
now.  But  such  occasional  or  stated  meetings  now  are 
no  evidence  that  the  first  day  of  the  week  is  not  also  ob- 

*  For  this  order  of  events,  see  Townsend's  Arrangement,  part 
6,  sects.  30 — 36.  Consult,  also,  any  other  Harmony  of  the 
Gospels. 

t  See  the  testimony  of  Pliny^  Justin  Martyr,  and  Eusebius, 
pp.  140,  141,  159,  161. 
12 


134 


THE    CHANGE. 


served,  in  distinction  from  other  days,  as  the  Sabbaths 
The  stated  Tuesday  and  Friday  evening  meetings, 
and  the  various  other  occasional  meetings,  of  the 
churches  in  this  city,  during  the  week,  do  not  prove 
that  there  is  no  day  specially  obseiTed  as  Sabbath 
here.  No  more  does  the  record  of  such  meetings  of 
the  primitive  churches  prove  the  non-obsei*vance  of 
the  same  Sabbath  by  them,  in  Eastern  cities  and 
in  apostolic  times.  Admit,  then,  that  the  primitive 
churches  had  their  stated  and  their  occasional  meet- 
ings during  the  week,  just  as  the  churches  now  do; 
it  may  yet  appear  that  they  also  had  the  fn-st  day  of 
the  week  set  apart,  as  Sabbath,  for  their  more  gen- 
eral and  regular  meetings  ;  and  that  this,  in  distinc- 
tion from  other  days,  and  by  divine  authority,  was 
their  special  and  distinctive  religious  day  —  as  truly 
special  as  was  the  Sabbath  of  old,  and  as  really  dis- 
tinctive, in  its  observance,  of  the  followers  of  Christ, 
as  was  that  of  the  worshippers  of  Jehovah. 

2.  That  it  was  so,  is  evident  fi'om  the  title  then  given 
to  it,  viz.  "  The  Lord's  day."  John  (Rev.  i.  10)  says, 
«I  was  in  the  Spirit  on  the  Lord's  day^''  That  this 
was  the  first  day  of  the  week,  or  the  day  of  Christ's 
resurrection,  is  proved  by  authentic  history.  Ig- 
natius,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Magnesians,  about  A.  D. 
101,  calls  the  first  day  of  the  week,  the  Lord's  day, 
the  day  consecrated  to  the  resurrection,  the  queen 
and  prince  of  all  days ;  and  says,  "  Let  every  friend 
of  Christ  celebrate  the  Lords  dayP  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  about  A.  D.  192,  says,  (Strom.  VII.  p. 
744,)  "  A  Christian,  according  to  the  command  of  the 
gospel,  observes  the  Lords  day,  thereby  glorifying 


lord's  day.  135 

the  resurrection  of  the  Lord."  And  again,  (Strom. 
V.  p.  600,)  «  The  Lord's  day  is  the  eighth  day."  Tlhe- 
odoret,  (Hseret.  Fab.  11.  1,)  speaking  of  the  Ebionites,  a 
party  of  Judaizing  Christians,  says,  "  They  keep  the 
Sabbath  "  (seventh  day)  "  according  to  the  Jewish  law, 
and  sanctify  the  Lord^s  day  "  (first  day) "  in  Hke  manner 
as  we  do."  Barnabas,  who,  if  not  a  companion  of 
the  apostles,  lived  in  the  apostolic  age,  in  his  Cath- 
olic Epistle,  says,  "  We  "  (Christians) "  keep  the  eighth 
day  "  (i.  e.  the  first  day  of  the  week)  "  as  a  joyful  holy 
day,  on  which  also  Jesus  rose  from  the  dead."  Cyp- 
rian, A.  D.  253,  in  a  letter  to  Fidus,  says,  that  the 
Lord^s  day  is  the  next  day  after  the  Sabbath,  Chrys- 
ostom  (Com.  on  Ps.  cxix.)  says,  "It  was  called  the 
Lord's  day,  because  the  Lord  ai*ose  from  the  dead 
on  this  day."  Other  passages  of  a  similar  character 
will  be  quoted,  in  another  connection,  hereafter. 
These  are  sufficient  to  show,  now,  that  when  John 
said  he  was  in  the  Spirit  on  the  Lord's  day,  he  spoke 
of  the  first  day  of  the  week,  and  that  this  day  was 
at  that  time  known,  observed,  and  distinguished,  in 
the  church,  from  other  days,  by  the  name  of  "  the 
Lord's  dayP 

But  why  this  designation  ?  and  what  is  its  import  ? 
The  occasion  of  it  was,  obviously,  the  resurrection  of 
the  Lord  upon  that  day.  And  so  far,  its  import  was  a 
memorial  of  that  event  But  if  that  were  all,  as  the 
day  of  his  ascension  was  afterwards  known  in  the 
church  as  "  Ascension  day,"  why  should  not  that  of 
his  resurrection  be  also  known  as  "Resurrection 
day"?  Why  should  one  of  them  be  called  "Lord's 
day  "  rather  than  the  other  ?  Or,  if  the  whole  import 
of  the  title  was  to  designate  a  day  commemorative 


136  THE    CHANGE. 

merely  of  the  event,  why  should  either  of  them  be  so 
called?  Surely  "Ascension  day"  and  "Resurrection 
day  "  were  a  more  appropriate  designation.  So  called, 
the  title  alone  would  indicate  the  event  commem- 
orated by  the  respective  day.  But  call  either  of  them 
"Lord's  day,"  and  the  titkf  merely,  gives  you  no  clew 
to  the  event.  In  this  case,  the  title  points  you  only  to 
the  person,  not  to  the  event.  And  whether  the  event 
commemorated  be  his  birth,  temptation,  crucifixion, 
resurrection,  or  ascension,  or  neither,  you  have  to 
learn  from  other  sources,  not  from  the  title.  There 
must  have  been  some  further  import,  then,  in  this 
designation  of  the  day.    What  was  it  ? 

To  call  this,  rather  than  the  other  days  of  the  week, 
"Lord's  day,"  was  saying,  of  course,  that  it  was,  in 
some  peculiar  sense,  so  distinguished  from  them,  as  to 
make  it  his  day,  by  way  of  eminence,  and  in  distinc- 
tion from  all  other  days.  But  why  this  distinction 
in  name,  indicative  of  a  corresponding  distinction  in 
fact  ?  What  was  the  ground  of  it  ?  Are  not  all  days 
the  Lord's  ?  Do  we  not  receive  them  all  from  him  ? 
Are  we  not  bound  to  serve  and  honor  him  in  them 
all  ?  and,  in  this  sense,  to  keep  all  days  holy  ?  Why, 
then,  this  distinction?  Whence  its  origin?  What 
its  nature  ?  The  day  was,  in  some  sense  above  all 
other  days,  peculiarly  the  Lord's.  How  could  it  be 
so  any  more  than  Ascension  day,  or  any  other  day  of 
the  week,  except  as  it,  in  distinction  from  them, 
was  set  apart,  hy  the  Lord,  or  by  his  authority,  to  he  ob- 
served in  honor  of  him,  in  some  peculiar  and  distinctive 
way'?  And,  as  they  had  some  religious  meetings  on 
other  days,  in  what  distinctive  way  could  they  ob- 
serve this,  except  they  observed  it  as  their  fecial  and 


lord's  day.  ISf 

distinctive  religious  day  —  a  day  devoted,  like  the  Sahbath 
of  old,  to  the  business  of  religious  instruction,  improve- 
ment, and  ivorship,  and,  in  its  observance,  designed  to  be 
a  distinctive  badge  of  disclpleship  ?  Obviously,  it  was 
as  a  day  thus  specially  and  distinctively  set  apart  to 
the  worship  and  service  of  the  Lord,  that  it  was 
called  "  Lord's  day."  Such,  at  least,  is  the  import  ot 
its  title,  as  demanded  by  the  nature  of  the  case. 

That  such  is  the  true  import,  is  further  obvious  from 
Scripture  usage  in  similar  cases.  "  The  sanctuary  of 
the  Lord,"  (IChron.  xxii.  19,)  and  "the  Lord's  house," 
(Ps.  cxvi.  19,)  denote  plainly  a  sanctuary,  and  a  house 
specially  set  apart,  in  distinction  from  ordinary  houses, 
to  his  service  and  honor.  "Apostles  of  the  Lord,"  or 
Lord's  apostles,  (2  Pet.  iii.  2,)  means,  of  course,  men 
set  apart,  by  the  Lord,  to  his  service  and  honor,  as 
apostles.  "  Apostles  of  Christ,"  or  Christ's  apostles, 
(1  Thess.  ii.  6,)  means  the  same.  "  The  Sabbath  of 
the  Lord,"  or  the  Lord's  Sabbath,  applied  (Lev.  xxiii. 
3)  to  the  original  seventh  day  Sabbath,  plainly  signi- 
fies a  day  appointed  or  set  apart,  by  the  Lord,  for  his 
service  and  honor.  "  Feasts  of  the  Lord,"  and  "  Sab- 
baths of  the  Lord,"  (Lev.  xxiii.  4,  38,)  imply  the  same. 
So  in  the  New  Testament  —  "  The  cup  of  the  Lord," 
or  the  Lord's  cup,  and  "  the  Lord's  table,"  (1  Cor.  x.  21,) 
imply  that  these,  in  distinction  from  ordinary  cups 
and  tables,  and  from  those  dedicated  to  devils,  are  set 
apart  or  consecrated  to  the  service  and  honor  of  the 
Lord. 

But  a  still  more  decisive  instance  of  this  usage  is 

furnished  in  the  phrase  'Hht  hordes  supper,^"*     (1  Cor. 

xi.  20.)    Here  we  find  a  particular  supper  singled  out 

and  distinguished  from  all  other  suppers,  as  the  Lord's. 

12* 


ii 


138 


THE    CHANGE. 


Why?  Not  that  one  supper,  any  more  than  one 
cup  or  table,  is  intrinsically  more  holy  than  another ; 
not  that  one  belongs  to  the  Lord  any  more  than  an- 
other ;  not  that  we  are  not  bound  to  serve  and  glorify 
God  in  one,  as  truly  as  another;  for  "Whether  ye 
eat  or  drink,  or  whatsoever  ye  do,  do  all  to  the  glory 
of  God,"  is  the  command ;  nor  was  it  that  in  these 
senses  all  suppers  are  not  equally  the  Lord's ;  for 
they  are,  and  the  apostle  understood  it  so.  Why, 
then,  the  application  of  the  name  to  one,  rather  than 
another,  and  the  consequent  distinction  of  the  one 
as,  in  some  sense,  peculiarly  his  ?  The  only  answer 
is,  what  from  other  sources  we  know  to  be  true,  that 
this,  in  distinction  from  all  others,  was  the  supper  set 
apart,  or  instituted,  by  the  Lord,  to  be  observed  in  re- 
membrance and  honor  of  him,  and  therefore  as  a 
badge  or  sign  of  discipleship  itself.  Its  appointrnent 
as  a  special  religious  ordinance  was  by  him.  Its  ob- 
servance as  such  was,  and  was  to  be,  in  remembrance 
and  honor  of  him,  and  was  thus,  of  necessity,  a  dis- 
tinctive badge  or  sign  of  those  that  were  his.  Of 
course  it  was,  above  all  others,  peculiarly  the  Lord's, 
and,  being  so,  received  its  designation  accordingly. 
How,  then,  can  we  resist  the  conclusion,  that  the  same 
was  true  of  "  the  Lord's  day  "  ?  ^  We  cannot.  As  the 
phrase  "The  Lord's  supper"  signified  a  supper  set 
apart,  in  distinction  from  all  others,  by  the  Lord,  to  be 
observed  as  a  special  and  distinctive  religious  ordi- 
nance, in  remembrance  and  honor  of  him,  so  "  the 
Lord's  day"  signified  a  day  set  apart  in  the  same 
way,  as  the  special  and  distinctive  religious  day  of  his 
people.  Each,  in  its  observance,  was  alike  honorary 
of  him  as  their  Lord,  and  distmctive  of  them  as  his 


lord's  day.  139 

people.  Such,  beyond  all  question,  is  the  legitimate 
and  true  import  of  the  phrase.  In  the  very  title  of 
the  day,  then,  we  have  the  proof  that  the  change 
of  the  Sabbath  from  the  seventh  to  the  fii'st  day  of 
the  week,  was  made  by  Christ  himself  or  by  his 
authority. 


CHAPTER    XIII. 

THE   ARGUMENT   CONTINUED. 

3.  Further  evidence  of  this  change  is  found  in  the 
fact  that  the  obsei-vance  of  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
as  their  regular  and  distinctive  religious  day,  was  the 
general  custom  of  the  primitive  churches,  and  that  in  this 
custom  they  had  apostolic  sanction.  The  evidence  on 
thispoint  is  twofold  —  that  of  the  Bible  and  that  of 
ecclesiastical  history.  As  the  latter  casts  light  on  the 
former,  it  may  be  appropriately  introduced  first. 

The  passages  already  quoted  show  the  prevalence  of 
the  custom,  and  that  it  was  peculiar  to  the  ChristianSo 
Besides  these,  Irenceus,  bishop  of  Lyons,  A.  D.  167, 
says,  "  On  the  Lord's  day  every  one  of  us  Christians 
keeps  Sabbath,  meditating  on  the  law,  and  rejoicing 
in  the  works  of  God."  Dionysius,  bishop  of  Corinth, 
A  D.  170,  (see  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  4,  c.  23,)  wri- 
ting to  the  Romans,  informs  them  that  the  Epistle  of 
Clement,  their  late  bishop,  was  read  in  the  church  at 
Corinth,  while  they  were  keeping  the  Lord's  holy 
day.  TeHullian,  A.  D.  192,  (De  Idolat.  ch.  14,)  says, 
"We  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  Sabbath,"  (the 
Jewish  seventh  day ;)  "the  Lord's  day  is  the  Cliristian^s 
solemnity."  Pliny,  the  Roman  governor  of  Bithynia, 
A.  D.  107,  in  his  letter  to  the  emperor  Trajan,  re- 
pecting  the  Christian  martyi's,  says  that  some  who 


THE  CHANGE. HISTORICAL  TESTIMONY.       141 

had  been  induced,  by  the  sufferings  to  which  they 
were  subjected,  to  renounce  their  faith  in  Christ,  gave 
this  account  of  their  former  rehgion  —  "  That  they 
were  accustomed,  on  a  stated  day,  to  meet  before  day- 
light, and  to  repeat  among  themselves  a  hymn  to 
Christ  as  to  a  god,  and  to  bind  themselves  by  an  oath 
not  to  commit  any  wickedness,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
to  abstain  from  thefts,  robberies,  and  adulteries ;  also 
not  to  violate  their  promise,  or  deny  a  pledge ;  after 
which  it  was  their  custom  to  separate  and  meet  again 
at  a  promiscuous  and  harmless  meal."  That  the 
"  stated  day"  spoken  of  was  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
is  proved  by  the  question  which  the  Roman  perse- 
cutors were  wont  to  put  to  their  victims,  and  by  the 
answer  which  was,  in  substance,  usually  given  to  it. 
The  question  was,  "Dominicum  servasti?"  i.  e. 
"Hast  thou  kept  the  Lord's  day?"  The  answer 
was,  "Christianus  sum;  intermittere  non  possum;" 
i.  e.  "  I  am  a  Christian ;  I  cannot  omit  it."  *  Justin 
Martyr,  in  his  Apology,  (Apol.  I.  chap.  67,)  addressed 
to  the  emperor  Antoninus,  A.  D.  147,  gives  a  still 
more  minute  account  of  the  Christian  day  of  worship. 
He  says,  "On  the  d  ay  called"  (by  you  Romans)  "Sunday, 
there  is  a  meeting  in  one  place  of  all  the  Christians 
who  live  either  in  the  towns  or  in  the  country,  and 
the  Memoirs  of  the  Apostles,"  (supposed  to  be  the  four 
Gospels,)  "  or  the  writings  of  the  prophets,  are  read  to 
them  as  long  as  is  suitable.  When  the  reader  stops, 
the  president  pronounces  an  admonition,  and  exhorts 
to  the  imitation  of  these  noble  examples  ;  after  which 
we  all  arise  and  begin  to  pray."     He  then  gives  an 

*  Acts  of  MartyrS;  in  Bishop  Andrews  on  the  Ten  Command- 
ments; p.  264. 


143  THE    CHANGE. 

account  of  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  supper,  and 
says  also  that  at  these  meetings  money  was  always 
collected  for  the  benefit  of  the  poor. 

These  testimonies  prepare  us  the  better  to  ap- 
preciate the  force  of  the  Scripture  testimony.  That 
testimony  is  as  follows :  (1.)  From  Acts  xx.  3 — 7 
we  learn,  that  Paul  and  his  companions,  on  leaving 
Greece  to  go  up  to  Jerusalem,  came  to  Troas,  and 
"abode  there  seven  days.  And  upon  the Jirst  day  oftJie 
weekj  when  the  disciples  came  together  to  break 
bread,  Paul  preached  unto  them,  ready  to  depart  on 
the  morrow." 

The  phrase  translated  here,  "And  upon  the  first 
day  of  the  week,"  is,  in  the  original,  '£*/'  d^  ttj  fiiq,  twv 
aaSSdTMv ;  i.  e.  literally,  "And  upon  the  one  of  the 
Sabbaths."  Some  have  argued  from  this,  that  the 
time  here  spoken  of  was  not  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  but  only  one  of  the  Jewish  Sabbaths.  To  this 
it  is  sufficient  to  say,  that  in  other  passages,  where 
the  first  day  of  the  week  is  unquestionably  designated,^ 
the  language  of  the  original  is  the  same.  Thus  in 
Luke  xxiv.  1  — "  Now  upon  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  very  early  in  the  morning,  they  came  unto  the 
sepulchre,"  &c.  This,  being  the  day  of  Christ's  resur- 
rection, was  clearly  the  first  day  of  the  week.  Yet 
the  language  of  the  original  is,  Tf^  dk  /uia  jxbv  aa66d- 
tcov  ;  literally,  "  Upon  the  one  of  the  Sabbaths."  In 
John  xx.  1,  it  is  the  same.  So  also  in  Matt,  xxvui.  1, 
and  Mai'k  xvi.  2.  This  settles  the  point  that  the  time 
in  the  present  case  was  the  first  day  of  the  week. 

It  is  equally  obvious,  that  the  meeting  spoken  of  in 
this  passage,  as  occurring  at  Troas,  on  this  day,  was 
according  to  established  custom,  and  not  a  special  or 


PAUL   AT   TROAS.  143 

occasional  meeting  called  because  of  Paul's  departure 
on  the  morrow.  A  strictly-literal  rendering  of  the 
passage  makes  this  quite  clear  ;  thus  —  "  Upon  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  the  disciples  having  assembled 
to  break  bread,  Paul  preached  to  them,  being  about 
to  depart  on  the  morrow ;  and  continued  his  speech 
until  midnight."  Now,  had  this  meeting  been  a  spe- 
cial or  occasional  one,  called  because  of  Paul's  de- 
parture on  the  morrow,  that  which,  as  a  leading  ob- 
ject, called  them  together,  must  have  been  to  hear 
Paul  preach,  and  the  breaking  of  bread  must  have 
come  in,  if  at  all,  only  as  incidental  to  that,  and  not 
that  as  incidental  to  their  assembling  to  break  bread. 
And  is  it  to  be  supposed  that  Paul  and  his  compan- 
ions remained  there  during  the  previous  "  seven 
days,"  with  no  meetings  of  the  disciples,  and  no  op- 
portunities to  address  them  until  just  as  they  were 
going  away  ?  Rather,  is  it  not  obvious  that  they  had 
Buch  meetings  and  such  opportunities  during  the 
week  ?  Could  it  have  been  otherwise  ?  And  must 
they  not  therefore  have  delayed  their  departure,  until 
after  the  first  day  of  the  week,  not  for  the  sake  of  an 
opportunity  to  preach  to  the  disciples,  but  just  as 
they  would  now  do  it  in  Boston  in  similar  circum- 
stances, that  th£.y  might  have  the  privilege  of  spending 
the  Sabbath  and  commemorating  the  Lord's  supper  with 
them,  at  their  regular  season  of  public  ivorship  on  that 
day  ?  * 

Moreover,  had  the  meeting  in  question  been  an  oc- 
casional one,  and  the  leading  object  of  it  therefore  to 

*  Acts  xxi.  4  records  a  similar  tarry  of  Paul  and  his  com- 
panions at  Tyre,  for  "seven  days,"  —  doubtless  for  the  same 
reason. 


144  THE    CHANGE. 

hear  Paul  preach,  its  record  must  have  run  thus  — 
"  Upon  the  first  day  of  the  week,  the  disciples  having 
assembled  to  hear  Paul  preach,  because  he  was  about 
to  depart  on  the  morrow,  (hey  took  that  opportunity  to 
break  bread,  or  celebrate  the  Lord's  supper."  This 
would  have  made  the  latter  truly  incidental  to  the 
former,  and  have  given  a  true  account  of  the  matter, 
on  this  supposition.  Such,  however,  is  not  the  record. 
It  is  just  the  reverse.  It  is,  that  "  Upon  the  first  day 
of  the  week,  the  disciples  having  assembled  to  break 
bread,  or  celebrate  the  Lord's  supper,  Pavl  took  that 
opportunity  to  preacli.^^  This  makes  the  preaching 
incidental  to  their  assembling  for  the  observance  of 
the  supper,  and  it  presents  their  assembling  as  the 
usual  custom  of  the  church.  It  is  as  if  the  writer 
had  said,  "Upon  the  first  day  of  the  week,  the  dis- 
ciples having  assembled,  according  to  custom,  to 
celebrate  the  Lord's  supper,  Paul  took  that  opportu- 
nity to  preach  to  them,  as  he  was  about  to  leave  on 
the  morrow ;  and,  on  the  same  account  also,  he  con- 
tinued his  speech  until  midnight,  when  the  accident 
occurred,  which  is  afterwards  narrated."  How  plain, 
then,  that  this  was  the  regular  weekly  meeting  of  the 
church  for  public  religious  worship,  and  that  it  was 
held  as  a  matter  of  established  custom  on  each  re- 
turning first  or  Lord's  day ! 

(2.)  Paul  says,  (1  Cor.  xvi.  I,  2,)  "Now,  concerning 
the  collection  for  the  saints,  as  I  have  given  order  to 
the  churches  of  Galatia,  even  so  do  ye.  Upon  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  let  every  one  of  you  lay  by  him 
in  store,  as  God  hath  prospered  him,  that  there  be  no 
gatherings  when  I  come."  The  laying  up  in  store 
spoken  of,  was  not,  of  course,  laying  up  in  store  at 


CHURCH    AT    CORINTH. 

koine;  for  that  would  in  no  respect  do 
necessity  of  "gatherings"  when  Paul  came.  This 
could  be  prevented  only  by  their  putting  their  contri- 
butions into  some  public  common  store,  where  they 
would  be  ready  for  the  apostle  on  his  arrival  —  in 
other  words,  into  the  public  common  treasury  of  th£ 
church.  The  contribution  was  for  the  poor  of  the 
church.  It  would  be  made  most  fittingly,  only  when 
the  members  of  the  church  were  generally  assembled 
to  commemorate,  by  the  observance  of  the  supper, 
the  love  of  that  common  Lord,  wha,  though  rich,  for 
their  sakes  became  poor.  It  could  be  made  most  con- 
veniently, only  at  those  times  and  on  those  occasions 
when  they  were  most  generally  together ;  i.  e.  at  their 
seasons  of  public  worship.  It  could  be  made  regu- 
larly,only  at  the  regular  and  established  seRsons  of  such 
worship.  It  was  to  be  made,  as  the  passage  shows, 
on  the  first  day  of  every  week.  How,  then,  can  we 
avoid  the  conclusion,  that  this,  above  all  other  days, 
was  the  regular  and  established  day  for  public  reli- 
gious worship  ?  Why  the  injunction  —  an  injunction 
extending  to  all  the  churches  —  to  make  the  collec- 
tion on  this  rather  than  some  other  day  of  the  week, 
except  that  this,  in  distinction  from  all  others,  was  the 
regular  religious  day  of  the  churches,  and  therefore 
the  day  when  they  would  be  most  generally  and  reg- 
ularly assembled,  and  be  able  most  conveniently  to 
make  it  ? 

Place,  now,  these  testimonies  together;  and  do  they 
not  prove,  beyond  dispute,  (1.)  that  the  early  Christians 
were  in  the  habit  of  meeting  for  religious  instruction 
and  worship,  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  supper,  and 
the  collection  of  charity  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  ? 
13 


146  THE    CHANGE. 

and,  (2.)  that  this  was  not  an  occasional  occurrence,  but 
the  regular,  universal,  and  distinctive  custom  of  the 
churches  ?  Examine  the  witnesses.  So  far  as  the 
Scripture  testimony  is  concerned,  it  is  plain  that  the 
custom  obtained,  as  a  regular  and  established  one,  in 
Jerusalem,  in  Troas,  among  all  the  churches  of  Gala- 
tia,  and  in  Corinth.  As  to  the  other  testimony,  the 
writers  lived  in  various  and  remote  countries  —  Barna- 
bas and  Justin,  in  Palestine;  Pliny,  (while  proconsul,) 
inBithynia;  Tertullian  and  Cyprian,  in  Libya;  Dio- 
nysius,  in  Greece  ;  those  to  whom  he  wrote,  in  Italy ; 
Irenseus,  in  Gaul ;  Ignatius,  in  Syria,  &c.  They  lived, 
too,  at  different  periods  during  the  second  and  third 
centuries.  They  all  agree  in  respect  to  the  preva- 
lence of  the  custom  in  their  country  and  time.  This 
settles  the  fact  of  its  universality.  They  agree  also 
that  it  was  peculiar  to  and  distinctive  of  Christians  — 
that  it  was  a  new  custom,  begun  and  identified  with 
Christianity,  and  unknown  before.  Indeed,  to  such  an 
extent  was  it  the  distinctive  peculiarity  or  badge  of 
discipleship,  that  their  persecutors,  instead  of  asking 
whether  they  were  Christians,  determined  that  point 
by  asking  whether  they  kept  the  Lord's  day !  And 
the  answer  they  received  was,  "  We  are  Christians, 
and  therefore  we  cannot  but  keep  it"  —  as  if  they  had 
said,  "  The  observance  of  the  day,  in  honor  of  our 
Lord,  and  our  religion  are  identical ;  the  one  is  but 
the  badge  or  public  profession  of  the  other,  and  we 
can  therefore  no  more  omit  the  one  than  we  can  give 
up  the  other."  The  existence,  universality,  and  dis- 
tinctiveness of  the  custom  in  question,  during  the 
first  three  centuries,  is,  then,  beyond  dispute.  The  re- 
ligious observance  of  the  first  day  of  the  week,  as 


APOSTOLIC    SANCTION.  147 

Lord's  day,  in  lienor  of  Jesus  Christ,  was  as  universal 
as  the  church  itself.  It  was  also  as  distinctive  a 
badge  of  Christians,  as  the  followers  and  worshippers 
of  Jehovah-Savior,  as  the  observance  of  the  former 
Sabbath  had  been  of  the  Jews,  as  the  servants  and 
worshippers  of  Jehovah-Creator. 

But  whence  came  this  new  and  distinctive  custom  ? 
By  what  authority  gained  it  such  general  and  univer- 
sal prevalence  ?  Not  of  accident,  plainly ;  nor  yet  of  as- 
sumption. For  had  it  been  from  either  of  these,  there 
must  have  been  diversity  in  the  custom,  not  wide- 
spread and  universal  uniformity.  The  accident  or 
the  assumption,  whichever  it  might  be,  would  not 
have  been  the  same,  the  world  over.  The  custom 
began,  as  we  have  seen,  with  Christianity,  and  spread 
wherever  that  did.  Whence  could  it  have  originated, 
and  by  what  authority  could  it  have  so  spread,  except 
from  the  origin  and  by  the  authority  which  gave 
being  and  prevalence  to  Christianity  herself? 

Besides,  it  was  always  the  custom  of  the  apostles, 
particularly  of  Paul,  to  expose  and  correct  whatever 
was  wrong  in  the  churches.  If  he  found  the  Gala- 
tians  or  the  Hebrews  falling  off  to  Judaism,  he  at 
once  wrote  them  an  epistle  to  correct  their  error.  If 
he  found  the  Corinthians  glorying  in  men,  —  in  Paul, 
or  Apollos,  or  Cephas,  —  or  tolerating  an  incestuous 
person  in  the  church,  or  perverting  the  Lord's  supper, 
or  conducting  disorderly  in  their  religious  meetings, 
he  at  once  corrected  their  errors  and  rebuked  their 
sins.  Now,  had  the  regular  religious  observance  of 
the  first  day  of  the  week  been  a  relic  of  Judaism,  or 
a  priestly  assumption,  or  even  an  accidental  custom 
inconsistent  at  all  with  the  genius  and  spirit  of  Chris- 


148  THE    CHANGE. 

tianity,  is  it  to  be  believed  that  he  would  not  as  read- 
ily have  corrected  this  error,  or  denounced  this  sin  ? 
But  did  he  do  it  ?  So  far  from  it,  we  find  him  at 
Troas  actually  participating  in  its  observance  himself 
—  nay,  to  all  appearance,  delaying  his  journey  for 
several  days,  that  he  may  have  the  privilege  of  doing 
it !  Nor  have  we  a  solitary  hint  from  him,  here  or 
elsewhere,  that  there  was  any  thing  wrong,  Judaistic, 
or  anti-Christian  in  it.  And  what  is  this  but  apostolic 
sanction  ?  Moreover,  when  he  writes  to  the  Corinth- 
ians, in  the  very  Epistle  in  which  he  corrects  so  many 
other  errors  and  reproves  so  many  other  faults,  so  far 
from  blaming  them  for  their  regular  observance  of 
the  first  day  of  the  week  as  a  day  of  public  religious 
worship,  he  directs  them,  as  he  had  before  directed 
all  the  churches  of  Galatia,  to  do  that,  in  time  to  come, 
which  they  could  not  do  except  as  they  kept  up  the 
custom.  The  whole  direction  about  the  regular 
weekly  collection  went  on  the  assumption  that  the 
custom  of  the  regular  weekly  meeting  was  to  be  per- 
manent. In  giving  the  direction,  then,  to  make  a  regu- 
lar weekly  collection  on  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
Paul  virtually  directed  them  to  keep  up  their  regular 
weekly  meeting  for  public  worship,  at  which  the  col- 
lection was  to  be  made.  The  ordering  of  the  one 
was  virtually  an  ordenng  to  persist  in  the  other.  And 
what  is  this  but  apostolic  appointment  ?  It  is  clear, 
then,  that  the  observance  of  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
as  their  regular  and  distinctive  religious  day,  was 
the  general  and  established  custom  of  the  primitive 
churches,  and  that  in  this  custom  they  had  apostolic 
sanction  and  authority,  and  in  these,  the  sanction  and 
authority  of  Jesus  Christ. 


CHAPTER    XIV. 

THE    PROOF-TEXTS    OF    OPPONENTS. 

The  favorite  proof-texts  of  the  opponents  of  the 
Sabbath  only  confirm  the  view  we  have  taken. 
These  texts  are,  Col.  ii.  16,  17,  "  Let  no  man,  therefore, 
judge  you  in  meat,  or  in  drink,  or  in  respect  of  a 
holy  day,  or  of  the  new  moon,  or  of  the  Sabbath- 
days  ;  which  are  a  shadow  of  things  to  come,  but 
the  body  is  of  Christ;"  and  Rom.  xiv.  5,  " One  man 
esteemeth  one  day  above  another ;  another  esteemeth 
every  day  alike.  Let  every  man  be  fully  persuaded 
in  his  own  mind." 

These  passages  are  quoted  as  if  they  had  reference 
primarily  and  especially  to  the  question  of  the  Sab- 
bath as  now  agitated.  It  is  assumed  that  the  meaning 
of  the  apostle  is  this  —  "Let  no  man  judge  or  cen- 
sure you  in  regard  to  the  observance  of  the  old 
Jewish  or  seventh  day  Sabbath,  or  any  of  the  other 
Jewish  feasts  or  ceremonials  ;  for  they  are  all  only  a 
shadow  which  is  fulfilled  in  Christ,  and  are  therefore 
now  no  longer  obligatory.  And,  in  respect  to  the 
observance  of  the  first,  or  indeed  of  any  particular 
day,  as  Sabbath,  one  man  esteemeth  one  day,  as,  for 
instance,  the  first,  above  another ;  another  esteemeth 
every  day  alike.  Let  every  man  be  fully  persuaded 
in  his  own  mind,  and  observe  one  day,  or  another,  or 
13  ^ 


150  THE    CHANGE. 

none,  as  he  chooses."  Such,  1  say,  is  assumed  to  be 
their  meaning ;  for  no  argument  is  ever  attempted  to 
prove  it.  But  such  is  not  their  meaning.  So  far  from 
it,  they  eitlier  have  7io  reference  to  the  seventh  or  the 
first  day  Sabbath,  but  only  to  the  other  Jewish  fes- 
tivals or  Sabbaths,  or  they  declare  simply,  that  the 
seventh  day  Sabbath  is  no  longer  obligatory,  and  do 
it  in  circumstances  vsrhich  make  it  a  virtual  declara- 
tion that  the  Lord's  day,  or  first  day  Sabbath,  is  ob- 
ligatory.    This  will  be  apparent  as  we  proceed. 

In  the  apostolic  age,  the  first  and  the  seventh  day 
of  the  week  had  each  its  appropHaie  and  distinctive 
namej  which  name  was  never  applied  to  the  other.  The 
former  was  called  -^iti^ga  nvgiaicr],  i.  e.  '^Lord's  day^^ 
and  never  Sabbath.  The  latter  was  called  ad()6a- 
lop,  i.  e.  Sahbath,  and  never  Lord's  day.  This 
is  obvious  from  the  passages,  from  various  ecclesias- 
tical writers,  quoted  on  pp.  134,  135.  Moreover,  this 
distinction  of  name  was  kept  up  for  a  long  period. 
Professor  Stuart,  of  Andover,  (Gurney  on  the  Sab- 
bath, p.  114,)  says,  "It  was  not  until  the  party  in  the 
Christian  church  had  become  extinct,  or  nearly  so, 
who  pleaded  for  the  observance  of  the  seventh  day,  or 
Jewish  Sabbath,  as  well  as  of  the  Lord's  day,  that 
the  name  Sabbath  began  to  be  given  to  the  first  day 
of  the  week."  As  late  as  the  fourth  century,  the 
names  were  as  distinct  from  each  other  as  the  days. 

That  there  was  a  party  in  the  primitive  church, 
who  urged  the  observance  of  both  days,  is  a  simple 
historic  fact.  The  Ebionites  were  of  this  class. 
« They,"  says  Theodoret,  "  keep  the  Sabbath^^  (seventh 
day)  "  according  to  the  Jewish  law,  and  sanctify  the 
Lord^s  day  "  (first  day)  "  in  like  manner  as  we  do."    In- 


TEXTS    OP    OPPONENTS.  151 

deed,  so  prevalent  was  this  party  at  one  time,  and  so 
superstitious,  withal,  in  their  observance  of  the  seventh 
day,  that  to  counteract  it,  the  Council  of  Laodicea, 
about  A.  D.  350,  passed  a  decree,  saying,  "  It  is  not 
proper  for  Christians  to  Judaize,  and  to  cease  from 
labor  on  the  Sabbath,"  (seventh  day  ;)  "  but  they  ought 
to  work  on  this  day,  and  to  put  especial  honor  "  (tiqo 
TifiibvTeg)  "  upon  the  Lord's  day,''^  (first  day) "  by  refrain- 
ing from  labor,  as  Christians.  If  any  one  be  found 
Judaizing,  let  him  be  anathematized." 

That  such  a  party  should  arise,  especially  among 
the  converts  from  Judaism,  was  most  natural.  Chris- 
tianity itself  was  but  the  substance,  of  which  Judaism 
was  the  shadow  or  type.  It  was  indeed  the  same  re- 
ligion, only  under  a  new  dispensation  —  that  of  Mes- 
siah come,  instead  of  that  of  Messiah  typified  and  ex- 
pected. Moreover,  the  attachment  of  the  Jew  to  the 
religion  of  his  fathers  was  intense  and  proverbial.  How 
natural,  then,  that  he  should  cling  to  old  rites  and 
ceremonies,  even  after  his  reception  of  Messiah !  How 
prone  such  converts  were  to  fall  back  upon  these 
observances,  and  even  to  place  reliance  on  them  as 
grounds  of  salvation,  is  obvious  from  the  Epistles  to 
the  Galatians  and  the  Hebrews.  Even  Peter,  (Gal.  ii. 
11 — 14,)  with  all  his  visions  on  the  subject,  was  too 
feeble  to  stem  the  current. 

In  these  circumstances,  the  question  of  the  obser- 
vance of  Jewish  rites  and.  ceremonies  would  be  nat- 
urally and  continually  coming  up ;  at  one  time,  in 
regard  to  circumcision;  at  another,  in  respect  to 
meats  and  drinks ;  at  another,  in  respect  to  religious 
feasts  and  holy  days  ;  and  among  the  rest,  in  respect 
to  the  seventh  day  Sabbath.    But  whenever  the  ques- 


152  THE    CHANGE. 

tion  came  up,  whether  in  reference  to  one  or  all  of 
tliese,  the  only  answer  that  could  be  given  was  sub- 
st£uitially  this :  —  As  sjrmbols  or  types,  these  things 
are  all  fulfilled  in  Ciirist.  Their  observance  is  there- 
fore no  longer  obligatory.  As  such  they  are  at  an 
end — the  shadow  having  given  place  to  the  sub- 
stance ;  Messiah  typified,  to  Messiah  come.  At  the 
same  time,  as,  in  tlie  case  of  circumcision,  for  in- 
stance, or  that  of  the  religious  observance  of  partic- 
ular days,  or  abstinence  from  particular  meats,  there 
is  nothing  wicked  in  the  things  themselves,  if  one 
thinks  he  must  do  them,  therefore,  to  satisfy  any 
scruples  of  mind  you  may  have,  you  can  observe 
them  if  you  wish  —  provided  always,  that  you  do  it 
as  Christians,  and  not  as  Jews,  and  therefore  never 
place  any  reliance  on  their  observance  for  your  sal- 
vation, and  never  attempt  to  bind  the  conscience  of 
others  in  respect  to  them.  Observed  with  this  con- 
dition, they  are,  in  themselves,  harmless,  and  may  be 
observed  or  not,  as  you  severally  choose.  But  the 
moment  you  go  to  placing  reliance  on  their  obser- 
vance for  salvation,  "Ye  are  fallen  from  grace,"  (Gal. 
V.  4 ;)  you  have  rejected  Christ  come  in  your  reliance 
on  Christ  typified;  and,  (Gal.  iv.  21,  and  v.  2,  4,)  "Tell 
me,  ye  that  desire  to  be  under  the  law,  do  ye  not 
hear  the  law  ?  Behold,  I  Paul  say  unto  you,  that  if 
ye  be  circumcised,"  and  go  to  relying  on  that  for  sal- 
vation, "Christ  shall  profit  you  nothing.  Christ  is 
become  of  no  effect  unto  you,  whosoever  of  you 
are  justified  by  the  law.  Ye  are  fallen  from  grace." 
No  more  may  you  bind  the  conscience  of  your  broth- 
er in  the  case.  "  Who  art  thou  that  judgest  another 
man's  servant,"  and  presumest  to  condemn  him  in 


TEXTS    OF    OPPONENTS.  153 

mattei's  which  his  master  does  not  make  obligatory, 
but  in  respect  to  which  each  is  allowed  to  "  be  fully 
persuaded  in  his  own  mind "  ?  In  these  things  no 
man  may  "judge  "  another.  See,  then,  that  ye  neither 
"judge"  others,  nor  allow  them  to  "judge  "  you  in 
respect  to  them. 

This,  indeed,  was  just  the  question  that  came  up, 
and  just  the  answer  that  Paul  gave  to  it  in  the  pas- 
sages now  in  question,  and  so  often  mis-quoted  as 
proof-texts  against  the  divine  authority  of  the  Lord's 
DAY,  or  Christian  Sabbath.  It  would  seem,  (Col.  ii. 
14 — ^23,)  that  certain  persons  wished  to  make  the 
Colossians  "subject  to"  (Jewish)  "ordinances"  about 
"  meat,  and  drink,  and  a  holy  day,"  &c.,  and  that  they 
even  went  so  far  as  to  insist  that  their  observance 
was  obligatory,  and  to  condemn  and  censure  those  who 
did  not  observe  them.  To  this  the  apostle  replied. 
These  were  but  "  a  shadow  of  things  to  come,  but 
the  body  is  of  Christ."  He  therefore  has  "blotted 
out  the  hand- writing  o^  ordinances  that  was  against  us, 
nailing  it  to  his  cross,"  so  that  it  is  now  no  longer 
obligatory.  "Let  no  man  therefore  judge  you"  in 
respect  to  any  of  its  requirements  —  "in  meat,  or  in 
drink,  or  in  respect  of  a  holy  day,  or  of  the  new 
moon,  or  of  the  Sabbath  days." 

The  same  leaven  was  at  work  among  the  Romans. 
The  apostle  met  it  in  the  same  way  —  "Who  art 
thou  that  judgest  another  man's  servant  ?  To  his  own 
master  he  standeth  or  falleth.  Yea,"  in  the  present 
case,  and  in  respect  to  the  matters  now  in  question, 
"/i«,"  the  Christian,  shall  not  fall  at  all;  "he  shall  be 
holden  up ;  for  God  is  able  to  make  him  stand."  For 
instance,  "One   man  esteemeth  one  day  above  an- 


154  THE    CHANGE. 

Other,"  and  is  therefore  disposed  to  keep  particular 
days  holy,  or  to  observe  them  as  religious  festivals : 
"  another  esteemeth  every  day,"  and  does  not  feel  un- 
der any  obligation  to  keep  particular  days.  Now,  the 
true  Christian  doctrine,  in  respect  to  these  matters, 
is,  "Let  every  man  be  fully  persuaded  in  his  ow^n 
mmd."  If  he  thinks  he  ought  to  observe  particular 
days,  let  iiim ;  if  he  thinks  their  observance  is  not 
obligatory,  and  wishes  to  act  accordingly,  let  him. 
There  is  no  harm  in  either  case,  provided  he  act  in 
each  as  a  Christian.  For  the  Christian,  "that  regard- 
eth  the  day,"  if  he  does  it  as  a  Christian,  and  not  as 
a  Jew,  "  regai'deth  it  unto  "  the  honor  of  "  the  Lord  " 
Jesus  Christ ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Christian, 
"  that  regardeth  not  the  day,"  does  it  with  a  view  to  the 
same  end,  the  honor  of  the  Lord  Jesus  —  "  to  the  Lord 
he  doth  not  regard  it."  Just  so  with  regard  to  eating 
or  not  eating  particular  meats.  Let  every  Christian  do 
as  he  pleases  in  the  case.  At  the  same  time,  (v.  13,)  let 
no  one,  in  these  indifferent  matters,  "  put  a  stumbling- 
block,  or  an  occasion  to  fall,  in  his  brother's  way." 
True,  (v.  14,)  "there  is  nothing  unclean  of  itselfj"  and 
so  far  you  may  eat  what  meats  you  please ;  neverthe- 
less, (v.  15,)  "if  thy  brother,"  the  Jewish  convert,  "be 
grieved  with "  your  eating  all  kinds  of  "  meat,"  and 
you  thereby  put  a  stumbling-block,  or  an  occasion  of 
offence,  in  his  way,  "thou  walkest  not  charitably" 
towards  him,  and  your  eating,  however  innocent  in 
itself,  is  therefore  (v.  20)  "  evil."  For,  according  to 
the  charity  of  the  gospel,  (v.  21,)  "  It  is  good  neither 
to  eat  flesh,  nor  to  drink  wine,  nor  any  thing  whereby 
thy  brother  stumbleth,  or  is  offended,  or  is  made 
weak." 


TEXTS    OF    OPPONENTS.  155 

Such,  obviously,  are  the  drift  and  import  of  the 
passages.  I  remark,  then,  (1.)  it  is  plain  that  the 
apostle  is  here  contending  with  those  who  were 
clamorous  for  the  continued  and  obligatory  obser- 
vance of  the  Mosaic  ritual.  It  was  purely  a  question 
about  Jewish  "  ordinances."  In  Colossians,  indeed,  it 
is  so  stated.  Hence,  too,  the  reference,  in  the  text 
and  context,  to  meats,  and  drinks,  and  new  moons,  and 
holy  days,  as  well  as  Sabbaths.  The  apostle's  decision 
was,  that  such  observance  was  not  obligatory,  though 
on  certain  conditions  to  be  allowed  to  the  Jewish  con- 
vert, and  tolerated  by  the  Gentile.  It  is  therefore 
altogether  probable,  that  the  "  Sabbaths "  spoken  of 
in  the  first  passage  (Colossians)  were  not  the  seventh 
day  Sabbath,  but  only  the  other  and  ceremonial  Sab- 
baths. At  all  events,  the  first  day  or  Christian  Sab- 
bath was  not  referi'ed  to  at  all,  for  that  was  then 
known  only  as  "  the  first  day  of  the  week,"  or  "  Lord's 
day,"  and  was  never  called  Sabbath  until  centuries 
afterward.  Be  those  "Sabbaths,"  then,  what  they 
might,  deciding  that  they  were  not  obligatory,  was  not 
deciding  that  the  Lord's  day  was  not. 

The  same  is  true  of  the  passage  in  Romans.  The 
entire  context  shows  that  the  question  at  issue,  and 
the  apostle's  decision  of  it,  were  the  same  as  in  the 
other  case.  Moreover,  what  proof  is  there  that  the 
"  day "  spoken  of  was  a  Sabbath  of  any  kind  ?  The 
term  "  Sabbath  "  does  not  occur  at  all  in  the  text  or 
context.  For  aught  that  appears  in  them,  the  "  day  "  in 
question  may  have  been  some  holy  or  feast  day,  not  a 
Sabbath.  It  is  but  probability  to  suppose  that  it  was 
any  Sabbath  day  whatever,  ceremonial,  seventh  day, 
or  first.    It  is  sheer  assumption  to  suppose  that  it  was 


156  THE    CHANGE. 

the  first  or  seventh  day  Sabbath,  rather  than  the  cere- 
monial Sabbaths.  If  the  day  or  days  were  some 
Sabbath,  the  whole  drift  and  import  of  the  passage 
point  to  the  ceremonial  Sabbaths,  not  to  the  seventh 
day  Sabbath,  nor  to  the  first,  as  the  Sabbaths  in  ques- 
tion. All  that  can  be  fairly  argued  from  the  passage 
is,  that  Christians  were  at  liberty  to  be  fully  persuaded 
in  their  own  minds  in  respect  to  the  observance  of 
ceremonial  feast  days  or  Sabbaths,  and  to  observe 
them  or  not,  as  they  chose.  There  is  not  a  particle 
of  evidence,  that  the  apostle  had  his  eye  on  any  other 
day  whatever.  To  suppose  that  he  had,  and  that  that 
day  was  the  seventh  or  the  first  day  Sabbath,  is  not 
only  a  groundless  assumption,  but  foreign  entirely  to 
the  scope  of  the  apostle's  argument.  And  to  suppose 
that  the  seventh  day  Sabbath,  or  the  first,  were  in- 
cluded among  the  others  as  ceremonials,  and  so  set 
aside,  is  to  beg  the  whole  question  about  their  being 
ceremonials.  Nay,  were  it  even  admitted  that  the 
seventh  day  Sabbath  was  so,  and  was  therefore  set 
aside  with  the  rest,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  the 
"Lord's  day,"  or  first  day  Sabbath,  was.  The  cere- 
monial Sabbaths,  including  the  seventh  day,  if  you 
will,  may  all  have  ceased  to  be  obligatory,  and  yet  the 
obligation  to  observe  the  Lord's  day  remained  in  full 
force.  In  deciding,  then,  that  they  had  ceased  to  be 
obligatory,  the  apostle  by  no  means  decided  that  the 
Lord's  day  had.  As  well  may  you  say,  that  the  de- 
cision that  eating  certain  meats,  and  abstaining  from 
others,  is  no  longer  obligatory,  was  a  decision  that  the 
observance  of  the  Lord's  supper  was  not  obligatory. 
The  truth  is,  the  question  of  the  observance  or  non- 
observance  of  the  Lord's  supper,  or  the  Lord's  day, 


TEXTS    OF    OPPONENTS.  157 

was  not  the  question  at  issue  in  either  of  these  cases, 
and  therefore  not  the  question  decided  in  either. 
The  argument  from  these  passages  for  the  non-ob- 
servance of  the  first  day  of  the  week  as  Sabbath  is 
therefore  groundless.  Neither  passage  has  any  refer- 
ence whatever  to  that  question.  The  most  that  can 
be  made  of  them,  on  the  most  liberal  interpretation, 
is  a  decision  that  the  seventh  day  Sabbath,  in  com- 
mon with  the  ceremonial  Sabbaths,  was  no  longer 
obligatory. 

But  such  a  decision,  in  the  circumstances,  was  a 
virtual  decision  that  the  Lord's  day  was  obligatory. 
What  were  the  circumstances  ?  First,  that  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  as  we  have  seen,  was  universally  and 
religiously  observed  in  the  primitive  church,  and  that 
it  was  observed  and  known  as  "  Lord's  day."  Second, 
that  its  observance  was  every  where  regarded  as  obli- 
gatory—  how  else  could  there  have  been  such  a  gen- 
eral uniformity  in  regard  to  its  actual  observance? 
Such  uniformity  did  not  obtain  touching  circumcision 
or  the  observance  of  the  seventh  day  Sabbath,  which 
some  of  the  early  disciples  advocated,  but  which  were 
to  others  of  doubtful  authority  and  obligation.  The 
universal  observance  of  the  Lord's  day  in  the  primi- 
tive church,  like  their  observance  of  baptism  and  the 
Lord's  supper,  is  proof  of  a  universal  conviction  that 
such  observance  was  obligatory.  Indeed,  among  all 
the  questions  and  controversies  that  arose  in  the  first 
ages  of  the  church  about  the  continued  observance 
of  the  seventh  day  Sabbath,  —  and  they  were  many,  — 
it  is  not  known  that  the  propriety  of  observing  Lord's 
day  was  ever  questioned.  Professor  Stuart  (Gurney, 
p.  115)  says,  "There  appears,"  on  this  point,  "never 
U 


158  THE    CHANGE. 

to  have  been  any  question  among  any  class  of  the  early 
Christians,  so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  discover.  Even 
the  Ebionites,  who  kept  the  Sabbath  (seventh  day) 
according  to  the  Jewish  law,  kept  also  the  Lord's 
day.  All  were  agreed,  then,  in  the  obligation  to  keep 
the  Lord's  day.  Now,  to  raise  the  question,  in  these 
circumstances,  whether  the  seventh  day  Sabbath 
should  be  kept  or  not,  was  to  ask,  not  whether  the 
first  day  was  to  be  kept,  —  for  that  was  settled,  —  nor 
whether  the  seventh  was  to  be  observed  in  preference 
to  or  in  place  of  the  first,  —  for  this  too  was  settled, — 
but  must  the  seventh  be  also  observed.  And  to  decide, 
as,  on  the  supposition  before  us,  the  apostle  did,  that  it 
need  not  also  be  observed,  —  i.  e.  was  not  also  obligatory, 
—  was  to  decide  that  the  other,  viz.  the  Lord's  day,  was 
obligatory.  The  conclusion,  then,  is  certain,  either  that 
the  passages  in  question  refer  ouly  to  the  Jewish  cere- 
monial Sabbaths,  not  including  the  seventh  day  Sab- 
bath, and  therefore  have  no  bearing  whatever  on  the 
question  of  the  Sabbath  as  now  agitated ;  or  that,  in  de- 
clai'ing  the  seventh  as  well  as  the  ceremonial  Sabbaths 
no  longer  obligatory,  they  virtually  declare  that  the 
first  day  Sabbath,  or  Lord's  day,  is  obligatory.  In  either 
case,  the  argument  from  them  to  the  non-observance 
of  Lord's  day  is  vain." 


CHAPTER    XV. 

TESTIMONY  OF  ECCLESIASTICAL  HISTORY. 

Early  and  authentic  ecclesiastical  history  confirms 
the  view  now  presented.  It  states,  indeed,  in  terms, 
that  the  Sabbath  was  changed  from  the  seventh  to 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  by  authority  of  Christ  him- 
self; and  also  that  the  mode  of  keeping  the  one  was 
transferred,  so  far  as  the  genius  of  Christianity  and 
the  nature  of  the  case  would  allow,  to  the  other. 
Thus  Clement  of  Alexandria  (A.  D.  192)  says,  "A 
Christian,  according  to  the  command  of  the  gospel, 
observes  the  Lord's  day^  So  that  its  observance,  in- 
stead of  being  an  accident,  or  a  relic  of  Judaism,  or 
in  any  way  anti-Christian,  was  "  according  to  the  com- 
mand of  the  gospelP  Athanasius  also,  (A.  D.  326,)  re- 
nouncing the  authority  of  the  seventh  day  Sabbath, 
says,  (De  Semente,  Ed,  Colon.  Tom.  I.  p.  1060,) 
"The  Lord  himself  hath  changed  the  day  of  the 
Sabbath  to  Lord's  day."  The  testimony  of  Eusehius 
is  still  more  to  the  purpose.  He  was  born  about 
A.  D.  270,  and  died  about  340.  Mosheim  says,  he 
was  "a  man  of  vast  reading  and  erudition."  Till 
about  forty  years  of  age,  he  lived  in  great  intimacy 
with  the  mai-tyr  Pamphilus,  a  learned  and  devout 
man  of  Cesarea,  and  founder  of  an  extensive  library 


160  THE    CHANGE 

there,  to  which  Eusebius  had  free  access.  Eusebiu^ 
as  all  admit,  was  an  impartial  as  well  as  learned  his- 
torian. He  searched  more  thoroughly  into  the  cus- 
toms and  antiquities  of  the  church,  than  any  other 
man  in  the  early  ages,  and  at  Cesarea  and  elsewhere 
had  access  to  the  best  helps  for  acquiring  correct  in- 
formation. He  is,  by  way  of  eminence,  the  ancient 
historian  of  the  church.  His  testimony  on  the  sub- 
ject before  us  is  contained  in  his  commentary  on  the 
Psalms,  printed  in  Montfaucon's  Collectio  Nova  Pa- 
trum,  and  is  as  follows :  —  * 

In  commenting  on  Ps.  xxii.  29,  he  says,  "  On  each 
day  of  our  Savior's  resurrection,"  (i.  e.  each  first  day 
of  the  week,)  "  which  is  called  Lord's  day,  we  may  see 
those  who  partake  of  the  consecrated  food  and  that 
body"  (of  Christ)  "which  has  a  saving  efficacy,  after 
the  eating  of  it,  bowing  down  to  him."    pp.  85,  86. 

Again,  on  Ps.  xlvi.  5,  he  says,  "  I  think  that  he  "  (the 
Psalmist) "  describes  the  morning  assembhes,  in  which 
we  are  accustomed  to  convene  throughout  the  worldJ* 
p.  195. 

On  Ps.  lix.  16,  he  says,  "By  this  is  prophetically- 
signified  the  service  which  is  performed  very  early 
and  every  morning  of  the  resurrection-day,"  (i.  e.  the 
first  day  of  the  week,)  'throughout  the  whole  world.^^ 
p.  272. 

Again,  Ps.  xcii.,  which  is  entitled  "  A  Psalm  or  Song 
for  the  Sahbath-day,''^  he  refers  to  the  Lord's  day,  and 
says,  "  It  exhorts  to  those  things  which  are  to  be  done 


*  This  testimony  is  given  by  Professor  Stuart^  Andover,  in 
Gumey  on  the  Sabbath,  App.  B. 


MADE    BY    CHRIST.  161 

on  resurrection-day."  Then,  observing  that  the  pre- 
cept for  the  Sabbath  was  originally  addressed  to  the 
Jews,  and  that  they  had  often  violated  it,  he  adds, 
"Wherefore,  as  they  rejected  it,"  (the  sabbatical  com- 
mand,) "THE  WORD,"  (Christ,)  ''bytkeJVew  Cove- 
nant, TRANSLATED  and  TRANSFERRED  THE 
FEAST  OF  THE  SABBATH  TO  THE  MORN- 
ING LIGHT,  and  gave  us  the  symbol  of  true  rest,  viz. 
THE  SAVING  LORD'S  DAY,  tJwJirst''  (day)  "0/  the 
light,  in  which  the  Savior  of  the  world,  after  all  his 
labors  among  men,  obtained  the  victory  over  death, 
and  passed  the  portals  of  heaven,  having  achieved  a 
work  superior  to  the  six  days'  creation." 

This  establishes  the  fact  that  the  transfer  of  the 
Sabbath  from  the  seventh  to  the  first  day  of  the  week 
was  made  by  Christ  himself,  and  that,  so  transferred, 
under  the  name  of  "Lord's  day,"  it  was  observed 
throughout  the  Christian  world.  The  commentary  pro- 
ceeds — "  On  this  day,  which  is  the  first "  (day)  "  of 
light  and  of  the  true  Sun,  we  assemble,  after  an  in- 
terval of  six  days,  and  celebrate  holy  and  spiritual  Sab- 
baths, even  all  nations  redeemed  by  him  throughout  the 
world,  and  cfo  those  things  according  to  the  spiritual  law, 
which  were  decreed  for  the  priests  to  do  on  the  Sab- 
bath ;  for  we  make  spiritual  oflferings  and  sacrifices, 
which  are  called  sacrifices  of  praise  and  rejoicing; 
we  make  incense  of  a  good  odor  to  ascend,  as  it  is 
said,  *Let  my  prayer  come  up  before  thee  as  in- 
cense.' Yea,  we  also  present  the  show-bread,  reviv- 
ing "  (by  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  supper)  "  the  re- 
membrance of  our  salvation,  the  blood  of  sprinkling, 
which  is  the  Lamb  of  God,  who  taketh  away  the  sins 
14* 


162  THE    CHANGE. 

of  the  world,  and  which  purifies  our  souls More- 
over, we  are  diligent  to  do  zealously,  on  that  day, 
the  things  enjoined  in  this  psahn ;  by  word  and  work 
making  confession  to  the  Lord,  and  singing  in  the 
name  of  the  Most  High.  In  the  morning,  also,  with 
the  first  rising  of  our  light,  we  proclaim  the  mercy 
of  God  toward  us ;  also  his  truth  by  night,  exhibiting 
a  sober  and  cJiaste  demeanor ;  and  all  things  whatsoever 
that  it  was  duty  to  do  on  the  Sabbath,^^  (seventh  day,) 
"THESE  WE  HAVE  TRANSFERRED  TO  THE 
LORD'S  DAY,  as  more  appropriately  belonging  to  it, 
because  it  has  a  precedence,  and  is  first  in  rank,  and  more 
honorable  than  the  Jeivish  Sabbath,  For  on  that "  (the 
first)  "  day,  in  making  the  world,  God  said.  Let  there 
be  light,  and  there  was  light ;  and  on  the  same  "  (first) 
"  day,  the  Sun  of  righteousness  arose  upon  our  souls. 
Wherefore  it  is  delivered  to  us  "  (handed  down  by  tradi- 
tion) "  tJmt  we  should  meet  together  on  this  day ;  and  it  is 
ordered  that  we  should  do  those  things  announced  in 
this  psalm."  Subsequently  he  adds,  "  This  Scripture 
teaches "  (that  we  are  to  spend  the  Lord's  day)  "  in 
leisure  for  religious  exercises,^*  [xibv  S-eUov  dcrxiasiov,) 
^^and  in  cessation  and  vacation  from  all  bodily  and 
mortal  works  —  which  the  Scriptures  call  ^ Sabbath^ 
and  ^rest,-^^ 

This  touches,  with  equal  explicitness,  the  mode  of 
keeping  the  day,  and  shows  that,  so  far  as  the  genius 
of  Christianity  and  the  nature  of  the  case  would  al- 
low, the  mode  of  its  observance,  as  well  as  the  insti- 
tution itself,  was  transferred  from  the  one  day  to  the 
other.  Lord's  day  was,  and  was  "  ordered  "  to  be,  a 
day  for  the  cessation  of  ordinary  labors,  and  for  pri- 


MADE    BY    CHRIST.  16S 

vate  and  public  religious  instruction  and  worship, 
just  as  truly  as  was  the  old  seventh  day  Sabbath. 
It  was,  in  a  word,  the  original  institution,  in  its  spir- 
itual and  essential  elements,  transferred  by  Christ 
himself  to  another  day,  and  observed  throughout  the 
Christian  world.  The  institution  was  the  same. 
The  mode  of  its  observance,  saving  what  of  its  former 
mode  had  been  typical,  was  also  the  same.  The  day 
only  was  changed  —  changed  by  him  who  was  at 
once  "Head  of  the  Church,"  "Lord  of  the  Sabbath," 
and  "  God  over  all,  blessed  forever." 

Such,  then,  is  the  argument  for  the  change  of  the 
Sabbath  from  the  seventh  to  the  first  day  of  the  week. 
The  change  is  just  what  we  should  expect  in  the 
event  of  there  being  any  ;  it  is  just  what  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case  demand ;  Christ,  as  Lord  of  the 
Sabbath  and  Head  of  the  Church,  had  the  right  to 
make  the  change ;  his  example  shows  that  he  did  not 
intend  its  abrogation,  as  an  institution,  but  its  per 
petuity,  with  a  change  in  the  day  of  its  observance : 
the  same  right  he  had  to  regulate  the  institutions  and 
order  of  his  church  he  gave  to  the  apostles ;  they,  in 
their  turn,  gave  their  sanction  and  authority  to  the 
observance  of  the  first  day  of  the  week  as  Sabbath, 
as  is  proved  by  the  whole  tenor  of  Scripture  and 
ecclesiastical  history;  and  ecclesiastical  history  tes- 
tifies, in  so  many  words,  that  Christ  himself "  trans- 
ferred "  the  Sabbath  to  the  first  day  of  the  week,  and 
that,  so  transferred,  under  the  name  of  "  Lord's  day," 
it  was  observed  throughout  the  then  Christian  world. 
It  cannot  be  doubted,  then,  that  under  the  Christian 
dispensation,  the  first  day  of  the  week  has  been  set 


164      THE  CHANGE  MADE  BY  CHRIST. 

apart,  by  divine  appointment,  to  be  observed,  in  place 
of  the  seventh,  as  the  Christian  Sabbath.  As  such, 
it  is  an  institution  of  Christianity.  It  is  part  and  par- 
cel of  Christianity.  Like  the  Lord's  supper,  or  the 
institution  of  marriage,  it  will  live  while  Christianity 
does.  Obligatory  now,  it  will  be  obligatory  always, 
and,  in  its  regular  observance,  will  be  every  where,  as 
with  the  early  Christians,  a  badge  of  discipleship 
itself: 


A    SKETCH 


PROCEEDINGS    OF    THE    CONVENTION 


DISCUSSION    OF    THE    SABBATH: 


ACCOMPANYING    REMARKS. 


BY   REV.    A.   A.   PHELPS. 


BOSTON: 

PUBLISHED    BY  D.   S.   KING, 

32  Washington  Street. 

1841. 


A   SKETCH,   &c- 


ORIGIN   AND   DESIGN   OF   THE  CONVENTION. 

On  the  24th  of  September,  1840,  at  the  close  of 
one  of  the  sessions  of  the  New  England  Non-resist- 
ance Society,  certain  "  friends  of  universal  reform," 
as  they  styled  themselves,  held  a  meeting  in  the 
Chardon  Street  Chapel,  Boston,  "  for  the  purpose  of 
considering  the  expediency  of  calling  a  Convention 
to  examine  the  validity  of  the  views  which  generally 
prevail  in  this  country  as  to  the  divine  appointment 
of  the  first  day  of  the  week  as  the  Christian  Sabbath, 
and  to  inquire  into  the  origin,  nature,  and  authority 
of  the  ministry,  and  the  chtirch,  as  now  existing." 
Of  this  meeting,  Edmund  Quincy  was  chairman, 
and  Maria  W.  Chapman  secretary.  It  was  agreed, 
that  such  a  Convention  should  be  held ;  and  Edmund 
Quincy,  Maria  W.  Chapman,  A.  Bronson  Alcott, 
Thankful  Southwick,  and  John  A.  Collins,  were  ap- 
pointed a  committee  to  issue  the  call,  specifying  the 
time,  place,  and  purposes  of  the  meeting.  The  call 
was  issued ;  and  in  accordance  with  it,  the  Conven- 


4  ORGANIZATION    OP    THE    CONVENTION. 

tion  assembled,  in  the  Chardon  Street  Chapel,  on  the 
18th  of  November  last. 

It  is  understood  that  the  Report,  which  was  ex- 
pected, of  the  proceedings  of  this  Convention,  is  not 
to  be  published.  On  many  accounts,  it  seems  de- 
sirable that  some  permanent  record  of  those  pro- 
ceedings should  be  made.  The  record  made  in  this 
Sketch  is  not  designed  as  a  record  of  all  the  proceed- 
ings, much  less  as  a  connected  report  of  the  course 
of  discussion  on  the  main  question,  —  that  of  the  Sab- 
bath,—  but  only  of  such  portions  of  them  as  directly 
concern  the  argument,  or  as  are  impoitant  as  an  il- 
lustration of  the  real  belief  and  spirit  of  those  who 
were  chiefly  instrumental  in  originating  and  directing 
the  Convention.  The  record  is  made  from  notes 
taken  at  the  time ;  and  while  it  does  not  give,  except 
in  cases  so  marked,  the  exact  language  of  the  speaker, 
it  does  give,  with  strict  fidelity,  the  substance  and  true 
import  of  it. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  CONVENTION. 

When  the  writer  entered  the  chapel,  about  an 
hour  after  the  opening  of  the  Convention,  a  chair- 
man and  secretary,  pro  tern.,,  had  been  chosen,  a  com- 
mittee appointed  to  nominate  officers  for  the  Con- 
vention, and  a  motion  was  pending  to  appoint  a 
committee  on  business.  Upon  this  motion,  a  desul- 
tory and  irregular  discussion  was  going  forward  upon 
the  propriety  of  having  any  officers  for  the  Conven- 
tion. 


ORGANIZATION    OF    THE    CONVENTION.  5 

Dr.  Brown*  said,  I  am  opposed  to  officers.  1 
don't  want  them.  I  came  here  hoping  to  have  a  Holy- 
Ghost  meeting.  Let  us  meet  together  as  Christians, 
and  wait  upon  the  Lord,  and  speak  as  the  Spirit  gives 
utterance.  And  if  any  thing  is  revealed  to  one  that 
sitteth  by,  let  him  get  up  and  speak,  and  not  be 
called  to  order  by  a  chairman.  1  want  a  free  meet- 
ing. I  came  here  expecting  to  have  one.  But  if  you 
go  to  having  your  chairmen  and  your  committees,  it 
won't  be  a  free  meeting.  I  shall  feel  bound.  I  fre- 
quently go  to  meetings,  and  they  call  them  free  meet- 
ings, but  they  are  not  free.  They  are  tied  up  to 
forms.  They  are  tied  up  at  one  end  to  the  minister, 
then  to  reading  a  chapter  in  the  Bible,  then  to  prayer 
by  the  priest,  and  so  on,  and  at  the  last  end  they  are 
tied  to  the  doxology ;  and  they  call  them  free  meet- 
ings, but  they  are  not.  The  children  of  God  are 
shut  up  in  them.  I  didn't  come  here  expecting 
this  meeting  to  be  opened  by  man,  or  shut  by  man. 
I  expected  it  would  be  opened  and  shut  by  God,  who 
openeth  and  no  man  shutteth,  and  who  shutteth  and 
no  man  openeth.  I  want  the  meeting  to  be  free ;  then 
we  shall  all  feel  free,  and  there  will  be  no  high  seats 
and  no  low  seats,  but  there'll  be  a  highway  of  the 
Lord  here.  I  do  hope  that  the  spirit  of  God  will 
prevail. 

Thomas  Davis  f  said,  I  want  to  speak  on  this  sub- 
ject     We  have  met    together   on  very  important 

*  Mr.  Brown  was  formerly  a  Freewill  Baptist,  or  Christ-ian, 
(which  I  am  not  certain,)  has  practised  some  as  a  physician,  and 
is  now  an  Antinomian  Perfectionist. 

t  One  of  the  Cape  Cod  Come-outers.  v^ 

1* 


b  ORGANIZATION    OP    THE    CONVENTION. 

questions,  quite  as  important  as  that  which  called 
the  primitive  Christians  together,  when  they  met  to 
consult  about  circumcision  and  some  other  things; 
and  it  seems  to  me  very  important  that  we  meet 
together  in  a  right  way.  Well,  we  read  that  they 
came  together  and  waited  on  God  by  prayer  and 
fasting.  But  we  don't  read  any  thing  about  their 
having  any  chairman,  ("Amen !  "  by  Dr.  Brown,)  nor 
about  their  having  any  president,  ("  Glory  to  God ! "  by 
Dr.  Brown ;)  and  then-  result,  we  have  every  reason 
to  believe,  was  according  to  the  mind  of  the  Spirit. 
Let  us  wait  on  God  in  the  same  way,  and  we  shan't 
need  any  chairman ;  and  we  shall  know,  by  our  own 
experience,  what  the  true  ministry  is,  and  what  the 
true  church  is,  and  what  the  true  Sabbath  of  spiritual 
rest  is. 

Others  expressed  similar  views. 

W.  L.  Garrison.  I  fully  agree  with  these  brethren 
about  the  importance  of  our  meeting  in  the  spirit  of 
God ;  but  I  have  frequently  met  them  in  anti-slavery 
meetings,  and  I  never  heard  them  complain  before, 
that  their  liberty  was  infringed  by  the  appointment, 
of  a  chairman  and  secretary.  I  certainly  mai*vel  at 
this,  and  call  on  them  to  be  consistent. 

Dr.  Brown.  I  didn't  come  here  to  address  man  as 
an  officer.  I  expected  to  meet  with  no  officers  here 
but  such  as  are  officers  in  the  church  of  the  living 
Grod  —  the  new  Jerusalem,  which  is  from  above,  and 
which  is  the  mother  of  us  all.  I  don't  feel  called  on 
to  address  any  man  as  president,  or  chairman,  or  to 
give  flattering  titles  to  any  one.  I  feel  bound  the 
moment  I  do  it ;  and  I  perceive,  by  the  grace  of  God 
given  unto  me,  that  all  meetings  are  bound,  as  soon 


I 


ORGANIZATION    OF    THE    CONVENTION.  7 

as  they  appoint  a  man  to  preside  over  them.  The 
brother,  over  there,  that  spoke  about  the  meeting  at 
Jerusalem,  spoke  my  mind,  as  the  Lord  has  revealed 
it  to  me.  Those  only  are  Christ's  freemen  who  are 
out  from  under  the  yoke  of  committees,  and  chair- 
men, and  ministers,  and  every  such  thing.  The  bon- 
dage in  which  men  are  to  priests  is  a  terrible  one ; 
but  tliey  may  thank  themselves  for  it.  They  put  the 
priest  up,  and  then  he  puts  on  the  yoke,  and  they 
have  to  wear  it.  And  it  will  be  just  so  with  this 
meeting.  If  you  put  a  chairman  or  a  committee  up 
at  one  end  of  it,  they'll  put  on  the  yoke,  and  you'll 
have  to  wear  it.  But  I  won't.  I  can't  be  ridden  by  a 
committee  or  a  chairman  any  more  than  I  can  by  a 
priest.  I  hope  the  tide  will  rise  here,  —  the  Holy 
Ghost  tide  I  want,  —  and  I  hope  it  will  rise  so  high  as 
to  wash  out  all  the  wood,  and  hay,  and  stubble,  there 
is  here.  Glory  to  God !  I  want  God  to  preside  over 
this  meeting.  He  that's  joined  to  God  is  one  spirit 
to  God.  And  so  it  is  with  every  thing  else.  He 
that's  joined  to  any  thing  is  one  spirit  with  it.  He 
that's  joined  to  Van  Buren  is  one  spirit  to  Van  Buren, 
and  he  that's  joined  to  Harrison  is  one  spirit  to  Har- 
rison, and  he  that's  joined  to  Congregationalists  is 
one  spirit  to  Congregationalists ;  and  so  it  is  with 
every  thing.  He  that's  joined  to  a  chairman  is 
one  spirit  to  a  chairman,  and  he  that's  joined  to  a 
committee  is  one  spirit  to  a  committee.  I  want  to 
be  joined  to  God,  and  I  want  to  have  this  meeting 
joined  to  God,  and  then  we  shall  be  one  spirit  to 
him.  The  Lord  keep  the  meeting  pure.  If  it  would 
do  any  good,  I  would  cry  for  thunder  and  lightning, 
if  nothing  else  would  do  it.     O  for  a  Holy  Ghost 


8  ORGANIZATION   OF   THE    CONVENTION. 

wind,  to  keep  the  meeting  clear  —  such  as  they  had 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost. 

A.  Bronson  Alcott.*  When  this  meeting  was 
called,  I  expected  that  each  one  would  have  an  oppor- 
tunity to  speak  his  own  mind  on  the  subjects  named 
in  the  call.  And  as  these  subjects  are  related  to  al- 
most every  thing  else,  I  supposed  that  anything  would 
be  in  place.  I  had  hoped  that  our  method  of  meeting 
would  be  a  reformed  method.  We  need  reform  in 
our  methods  of  meetings,  as  well  as  in  other  things ; 
and  I  would,  therefore,  propose  to  this  meeting,  that 
we  simply  meet  and  converse  together,  and  have  no 
chairman,  &c.  I  wish  to  meet  here  as  a  man,  and 
speak  to  the  man  in  man  —  to  universal  man.  Othera 
wish  to  do  the  same.  And  I  think,  if  the  sense  of  the 
meeting  were  taken,  a  majority  would  be  in  favor  of 
making  it  a  conversational  meeting. 

S.  B.  Bailet.  I  should  prefer  to  have  the  meeting 
organized. 

Dr.  Brown.  I  am  opposed  to  organization.  All 
organizations  in  nature  revolve  around  some  nucleus. 
If  there  is  any  one  here,  who  wants  to  be  the  nu- 
cleus of  this  meeting,  let  him  stand  forth.  God  is  my 
nucleus.  1  didn't  come  here  to  put  a  stopper  in  any 
man's  mouth,  nor  to  have  any  man  i)ut  one  into  my 
mouth ;  and  I  protest  against  one's  being  put  into  any 
brother's  mouth,  or  any  sister's  mouth.  I  can't  feel 
free  in  this  meeting  if  any  man  is  put  over  it ;  and  if 
one  is  put  over  it,  I  shall  want  to  get  out  of  it.    Glory 

*  This  Mr.  Alcott  is  not  Dr.  Alcott,  the  author  of  the  Young 
Man's  Guide,  The  Young  Husband,  &c.;  but  the  School  Teach- 
er Alcott,  the  author  of  Orphic  Sayings,  and  other  Transcendental 
writings. 


ORGANIZATION    OF    THE    CONVENTION.  9 

to  God !  I  feel  as  if  I  was  out  from  under  every  thing 
that  is  coming  dovirn,  and  as  if  I  could  cry  out  to  every 
body,  Stand  from  under !  stand  from  under !  O  my 
God,  confound  the  yoke-makers. 

Rev.  S.  Osgood,  D.  D.,  of  Springfield.  I  didn't 
come  here  to  hear  this  rant ;  and  if  we  are  to  be  here 
without  order,  and  like  the  town  meeting  at  Ephesus, 
the  better  part  not  knowing  wherefore  we  are  come 
together,  I  think  we  had  better  go  home,  and  not  stay 
here  on  expense,  and  to  no  purpose. 

Dr.  Brown.  I'm  here  on  the  king's  expense. — 
Glory  to  God ! 

After  considerable  confusion,  Dr.  Brown  put  it  to 
vote,  whether  the  meeting  would  have  a  chakman  or 
not.  It  was  decided  against  him.  The  Committee 
on  Officers  then  made  report,  which  was  accepted,  and 
the  chairman  was  about  to  proceed  to  the  nomination 
of  a  Business  Committee,  when,  with  reference  to 
what  had  been  said  before, 

Mr.  Joseph  A.  Whitmarsh  said,  Mr.  Garrison  says 
that  the  Sabbath  question  will  set  us  to  searching  the 
Scriptures.  I  do  not  know  about  this.  I  do  not  see 
any  thing  about  searching  the  Scriptures  in  the  call.* 

*  Mr.  Whitmarsh  was  one  of  Mr.  Garrison's  early  disciples. 
He  has  since  gone  off  to  the  no-money  and  other  vagaries.  On 
the  18th  of  May,  1839,  he  wrote  the  following  in  a  letter  to  Mr. 
John  E.  Fuller,  of  Boston.  "  For  one,  I  will  only  say,  that  I 
acknowledge  no  printed  record,  no  Scriptures,  nothing  that  ever 
was  or  is  now  printed,  no  man  as  my  teacher  or  ruler.  «  *  * 
I  am  a  Man.  From  this  time,  henceforth  and  forever,  I  renounce 
all  professions.  I  have  no  fellowship  or  sympathy  with  any  re- 
ligious professedly  ^  benevolent '  party  or  sectarian  establish- 
ment or  concern,  with  which  I  was  ever  connected,  or  with  any 


10  ORGANIZATION   OF   THE    CONVENTION. 

N.  H.  Whiting,  of  M arshfield.*  I  didn't  come  here 
to  search  the  Scriptures,  as  they  are  called.  I  came 
here  for  truth.  And  I  mean  to  go  over  the  world  for 
it,  and  find  it  wherever  I  can.  1  don't  mean  to  be  con- 
fined to  any  particular  book,  written  by  any  body,  or 
at  any  time,  past  or  present. 

W.  L.  Garrison.  I  came  here  to  hear  what  the 
Scriptures  say.  I  plant  my  feet  on  them.  I  know 
nothing  of  the  Sabbath,  the  church,  or  the  ministry, 
except  as  I  learn  it  from  them.  I  hold  no  argument 
on  these  subjects  with  those  who  deny  the  Bible.  My 
remarks,  so  far  as  1  make  any,  will  be  predicated  on 
the  Scriptures.     There  I  stand,  f 

The  Business  Committee  was  then  appointed.  Sev- 
eral members  declined  serving  on  it,  some  because 
they  were  opposed  to  a  committee,  and  some  for  other 
reasons;  and  at  length,  on  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  May, 
the  committee  was  dispensed  with. 

THE  BIBLE  REJECTED. 

Rev.  J.  V.  HiMES,  of  Boston.  It  seems  to  me  im- 
portant, that  we  fix  on  some  rule  of  authority  in  de- 

which  ever  have  existed  or  do  now  exist.  I  mean  churches,  so- 
cieties, ismSf  ists,  ites" 

*  Mr.  Whiting-  was  not  long  since  an  agent  of  the  old  Massa- 
chusetts A.  S.  Society.  He  took  a  prominent  part  in  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Convention. 

t  Yet,  when  Mr.  Himes's  resolution  came  up  to  make  the  Bible 
the  only  authoritative  standard  of  appeal  on  the  questions  to  come 
before  the  Convention, —  a  resolution  which  would  require  him  to 
say  in  what  sense  he  stood  upon  the  Bible,  —  he  at  once  opposed 
and  voted  agamst  it ! 


ORGANIZATION    OF    THE    CONVENTION.  11 

ciding  the  questions  that  are  to  come  before  us.  This 
will,  of  course,  be  the  Bible,  or  the  opinions,  feelings, 
&c.,  of  the  individual  minds  here.  I  would  therefore 
offer  the  following  for  the  adoption  of  the  Conven- 
tion :  — 

*•  Resolved,  That  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  are  an  authentic  record  of  our  faith,  and  the 
only  rule  of  faith  and  duty." 

A.  Bronson  Alcott.  I  foresaw  that  there  would 
be  a  previous  question  about  the  rule.  I  do  not  agree 
that  the  Scriptures,  as  they  are  called,  —  the  Christian 
Scriptures,  —  are  our  only,  or  our  highest  rule.  There 
are  three  Scriptures  in  the  world  —  tradition,  or  un- 
written Scripture  ;  the  Bible,  or  Christian  Scriptures, 
and  the  Scriptures  of  other  nations ;  and  our  own  con- 
victions. We  should  include  in  our  rule  not  only  our 
Scripture,  but  the  Scriptures  of  all  nations.  Other- 
wise our  standard  is  not  broad  enough.  It  is  not 
broad  enough,  because  it  is  not  as  broad  as  the  soul 
of  man.  I  do  not  think  our  Scriptures,  then,  are  the 
higher  and  the  only  standard.  I  think  the  standard 
should  be  this  —  a  man's  own  convictions. 

Thomas  Davis,  of  Brewster.  I  feel  a  great  degree 
of  seriousness  on  my  mind,  I  trust,  from  the  spirit  of 
the  Great  and  Holy  One,  respecting  the  cause  of 
Christ.  The  topics  of  the  call  of  this  meeting  have 
been  long  on  my  mind.  I  think  great  consequences 
are  to  result  from  this  meeting.  I  have  reason  to  fear 
we  don't  pray  enough.  We  have  not  prayer  enough 
in  this  meeting.  I  don't  insist  on  vocal  prayer.  That 
isn't  what  I  mean,  unless  brethren  feel  to  do  it.  But 
I  do  feel  that  we  need  to  have  more  prayer. 


12    ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  CONVENTION. 

W.  L.  Garrison.  There  is  a  spirit  of  judgment 
in  tliis  meeting,  which  I  feel  bound  to  enter  my  pro- 
test against.  J  protest  against  the  remarks  just  made 
by  brother  Davis.  How  does  he  know  how  much 
prayer  there  is  here  ?  In  regard  to  the  rule,  if  we 
undertake  to  adopt  the  resolution  of  brother  Himes, 
we  shall  be  driven  into  an  endless  discussion  in  re- 
spect to  the  inspiration  and  authority  of  the  Scriptures, 
and  shall  not  be  agreed  in  the  end.  I  would,  there- 
fore, propose  the  following  as  a  substitute:  — 

^^  Resolved,  That,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  the  first 
day  of  the  week  is  the  true  Christian  Sabbath." 

Dr.  Osgood,  I  am  in  favor  of  the  resolution  of- 
fered by  Mr.  Himes.  We  must  have  some  authoritative 
book  of  appeal ;  and  settling  this  settles  the  question 
whether  we  are  to  meet  as  a  body  of  infidels  or 
Christians. 

Dr.  Brown.  I  am  opposed  to  that  resolution,  and 
any  thing  like  it.  Are  we  to  be  bound  down  by  rev- 
elations that  others  have  had  ?  Why,  this  looks  like 
each  one's  bringing  a  little  god  in  here  under  his 
cloak,  and  then  calling  on  all  the  rest  to  bow  down  to 
it.    I  shan't  do  any  such  thing. 

A.  Bronson  Alcott.  I  did  not  understand  by  the 
call  for  this  Convention,  that  we  were  to  discuss  these 
questions  as  Christians.  I  supposed  we  were  to  dis- 
cuss them  as  men,  and  should,  therefore,  be  at  liberty 
to  seek  the  truth  in  respect  to  them  any  where. 

W.  L.  Garrison.  I  am  opposed  to  the  resolution 
of  brother  Himes,  and  shall  vote  against  it,  because  I 
foresee,  if  that  passes,  that  it  will  defeat  the  object  of 
the  Convention. 


ORGANIZATION    OF   THE    CONVENTION.  13 

Rev.  Silas  Hawley,  of  Groton.  I  think  we  must 
agree  on  some  standard,  by  vi^hich  to  settle  the  valid- 
ity of  the  common  opinions  on  these  topics.  Other- 
wise we  can  make  no  progress  in  the  discussion. 

Rev.  John  Pierpont,  of  Boston.  I  object  to  the 
idea  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  only  rule  of  faith  and 
practice.  There  are  a  great  many  subjects  —  scientific, 
for  instance  —  on  which  the  Bible  does  not  pretend 
to  be  a  rule  at  all.  I  would  therefore  offer,  in  the 
place  of  both  the  resolutions  before  the  meeting,  the 
following :  — 

"  Proposition.  —  The  first  day  of  the  week  is  ordained, 
by  divine  authority,  as  the  Christian  Sabbath." 

Rev.  J.  V.  HlMEs.  I  am  not  disposed  to  be  nice 
about  terms.  All  I  want  is  the  thing.  Some,  I  appre- 
hend, under  brother  Pierpont's  proposition,  will  refer 
to  "the  divinity  that  stirs  within  them."  What  I  wish 
is,  an  appeal  "to  the  law  and  to  the  testimony."  They 
are  our  only  authoritative  standard,  and  if  they  speak 
not  according  to  them,  it  is  not  that  they  have  got 
more  light,  but  because  they  have  got  none  —  "  there 
is  no  light  in  them."  I  wish  a  resolution,  therefore, 
that  shall  make  the  Bible  our  standard  of  appeal. 

W.  Lu  Garrison.  I  second  the  proposition  of  Mr. 
Pierpont.  I  like  it  better  than  my  own.  Brother 
Himes's  resolution  will  not  only  shut  out  avowed  infi- 
dels, but  some  who  profess  to  be  Christians.* 

Rev.  Nathaniel  Colver,  of  Boston.  I  am  in  fa- 
vor of  brother  Himes's  resolution,  for  three  reasons  — 

*  That  is,  such  professing  Christians  as  Brown,  Whiting,  and 
Alcott  —  Christians  that  scout  the  Bible  as  among  the  "  musty 
records  "  of  other  days,  and  inferior  in  authority  to  our  "  own 
convictions." 

2 


14  ORGANIZATION    OF    THE    CONVENTION. 

(1.)  The  questions  before  us  have  their  origin  in  the 
Bible.  (2.)  The  Bible,  if  a  rule  at  all,  is  an  entire  rule. 
Paul  told  Timothy,  that  "all  Scripture  was  given  by 
inspiration,"  &c.  (3.)  If  we  are  to  discuss  the  authen- 
ticity and  authority  of  the  Bible,  let  us  do  so  at  once, 
and  not  whip  the  Bible  over  the  back  of  the  Sabbath 
and  the  other  questions  before  us. 

Mr.  Dyer,  of  Vermont.*  I  object  to  the  reso- 
lution of  brother  Himes ;  and  I  will  give  my  reasons. 
(1.)  To  say  that  the  Bible  is  the  only  rule,  &c.,  is  to 
say  that  one  half  the  human  family  have  no  rule. 
Whence,  then,  is  their  condemnation?  (2.)  It  is  to 
deny  that  Jesus  Christ  is  our  rule.  And,  sir,  Jesus 
Christ  is  my  rule.  Sir,  you  pin  me  down  to  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  you  bind  me  down  to  forms  and  ceremo- 
nies. And  I  can't  be  bound  down  to  them.  The  letter 
killeth.  It  is  the  spirit,  sir,  that  giveth  life.  I  do 
hope,  therefore,  that  that  resolution  will  not  pass.  It 
looks  too  much  like  yokes,  and  bars,  and  gags,  and  I 
don't  like  it.  I  like  Mr.  Pierpont's,  and  I  hope  we 
shall  adopt  that. 

Rev.  N.  CoLVER.  If  there  are  any  here,  who  feel  that 
the  Bible  is  yokes  and  fetters,  it  is  pretty  clear  that 
they  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  before  us. 

Dr.  Brown.  When  it  is  said,  "Ail  Scripture  is 
given  by  inspiration,"  I  take  it,  it  don't  mean  that  only 
which  is  between  the  lids  (referring  to  the  Bible)  of 
that  book. 

Rev.  Mr.  Parker,  of  Roxbury.f  The  Old  and  New 
Testaments  are  in  many  respects  a  contradiction. 

**  One  of  the  Antinomian  Perfectionists  of  that  state. 
t  A  Unitarian  clerg-yman;  of  the  Transcendental  school. 


ORGANIZATION    OF    THE    CONVENTION.  15 

How,  then,  can  they  be  made  the  only  rule,  as  the 
resolution  affirms  ? 

N.  H.  Whiting.  Whether  the  resolution  (Mr. 
Himes's)  passes  or  not,  I  shan't  be  trammelled  by  it. 
I  came  here  for  truth,  and  I  won't  be  tied  down  to  the 
Scriptures,  or  any  thing  else,  for  it.  1  mean  to  seek 
truth  wherever  I  can  find  it.  I  don't  care  where  it 
comes  from.  If  it  comes  from  a  child,  or  from  the 
devil,  if  it  is  truth,  I'll  receive  it,  and  wherever  I  find 
it,  I'll  call  it  God's  truth.  Besides,  it  is  a  disputed 
question,  what  the  real  Scripture  is.  If  I  am  correctly 
informed,  a  large  portion  of  the  Scriptures,  as  they 
are  called,  was  not  written  when  Paul  said,  "  All  Scrip- 
ture is  given  by  inspiration,"  &c.  The  Bible,  as  we 
have  it  now,  was  not  made  up  till  some  time  after ;  and 
it  is  not  clear  how  much  of  it  is  real  Scripture,  and 
how  much  of  it  is  not. 

After  some  further  discussion,  Mr.  Himes's  resolu- 
tion was  voted  down,  and  Mr.  Pierpont's  adopted,* 
and  the  Convention  adjourned  to  the  afternoon. 


COMMENCEMENT  OF  THE  DISCUSSION. 

At  the  opening  of  the  session  in  the  afternoon,  Mr. 
Pierpont's  resolution  was  in  order.  As  this  presented 
the  question  in  the  affirmative  form,  the  advocates  of 
the  Sabbath  were  called  upon  to  step  forward  in  its 

*  "Those  only  voted  who  were  actual  members  of  the  Conven- 
tion. Messrs.  Colver,  Lee,  Osgood,  myself,  and  others,  though 
participating,  by  permission,  in  the  discussions  of  the  Conven- 
tion, did  not  enroll  ourselves  or  act  as  members. 


16  THE    DISCUSSION. 

defence.  They  replied,  that  they  themselves  were 
satisfied  with  the  current  views  on  the  subject ;  that 
they  had  no  doubt  of  their  correctness  ;  that  if  others 
had,  and  had  actually  summoned  a  Convention  for  the 
purpose  of  raising  the  question  in  regard  to  it,  it  be- 
came them  to  open  the  discussion ;  and  that  it  would 
be  in  season  for  the  friends  of  the  Sabbath  to  defend 
it  after  it  had  been  assailed ;  that  as  their  opponents 
were  the  real  plaintiffs  in  the  case,  it  became  them  to 
act  as  such,  and  not,  by  the  shape  of  their  resolution, 
shift  the  case  so  as  to  make  the  friends  of  the  Sabbath 
the  plaintiffs,  and  themselves  the  defendants.  They, 
therefore,  as  the  real  plaintiffs,  were  called  on  to  step 
forth  with  their  reasons  against  the  proposition,  that 
the  first  day  of  the  week  is  ordained,  by  divine  author- 
ity, as  the  Christian  Sabbath. 

In  the  course  of  this  discussion,  Mr.  Garrison  par- 
ticularly challenged  tlie  ministry  to  step  forward  in 
defence  of  their  cherished  institution.  He  said,  "  1 
see  here  several  clergymen,  who  do  not  hesitate  to 
fulminate  damnation  from  their  pulpits  on  those  who 
do  not  keep  the  first  day  of  the  week  as  Sabbath ;  but 
now  they  are  here  with  the  common  people,  they  are 
silent  Why  don't  they  come  forward  and  meet  the 
question  here  ?  Are  they  conscious  of  the  weakness 
of  their  cause  ?  I  am  glad  to  see  this  indication  of  a 
want  of  faith  in  their  opinions.  —  Mr.  Garrison  was 
reminded,  that  it  might  be  as  well  to  reserve  his  boast- 
ing until  we  were  through  with  the  discussion,  and 
that,  in  the  mean  time,  the  friends  of  the  Sabbath  would 
defend  it,  when,  in  their  judgment,  it  was  necessary. 
The  discussion  proceeded.  Several  individuals  spoke 
against  the  current  views  of  the  Sabbath.    Dr.  Os 


THE    DISCUSSION.  17 

GOOD,  at  the  openJDg  of  the  evening  session,  spoke  in 
their  defence.  The  discussion  continued  through  the 
two  succeeding  days.  Just  at  its  close,  on  the  even- 
ing of  the  third  day,  Mr.  Garrison  said,  I  wish  to 
call  the  attention  of  the  meeting  to  a  remarkahle  fact. 
It  is,  that  among  all  those  who  have  addressed  the 
Convention  in  defence  of  the  Sabbath,  there  has  not 
been  one  layman  —  they  have  all  been  clergymen ! 
There  is  the  fact  I  do  not  offer  it  as  argument ;  I 
only  call  attention  to  it  It  strikes  me  as  quite  signifi- 
cant The  meeting  will  make  what  inference  they 
please  from  it 

Mr.  CoLVER  replied.  According  to  brother  Garri- 
son's theory,*  we  are  all  priests.  Of  course,  we  have 
had  nothing  but  priests  on  that  side.  But  the  minis- 
ters—  ay,  there's  the  rub.  It's  in  the  man,  and  it 
will  come  out  The  Clergy  —  the  Clergy  —  the 
CLERGY  —  there  it  is.  Brother  Garrison  can't  let  it 
go,  without  a  ding  at  the  clergy.  Well,  let  it  out  — 
let  it  out  But  really,  such  a  fling  does  not  come  with 
very  good  grace  from  one,  who,  at  the  opening  of  the 
Convention,  so  boldly  dai'ed  us  to  the  discussion. 
Then,  to  be  sure,  he  dared  us  to  it ;  and  now,  when 
we  have  met  the  challenge,  he  blames  us  for  it,  and 
very  magnanimously  flings  it  at  us,  as  a  significant 
fact.    The  fling,  I  think,  will  be  duly  understood. 

*  Referring  to  a  remark  of  Mr.  G.,  in  another  connection, 
that  "  There  is  a  royal  priesthood,  and  it  is  all  those  who  be- 
lieve." 

2  * 


18  SENTIMENTS    OFFERED. 


SENTIMENTS    OFFERED    IN    THE     PROGRESS     OF 
THE   DISCUSSION. 

At  different  stages  of  the  discussion,  the  following 
sentiments  were  uttered  by  the  individuals  to  whom 
they  are  respectively  attributed. 

Rev.  Mr.  Parker,  of  Roxbury.  The  first  mention 
of  a  Sabbath  was  in  the  time  of  Moses.  There  was 
so  much  of  the  religious  spirit  among  the  old  patri- 
archs, that  they  had  no  need  of  a  Sabbath.  Moses 
instituted  the  Sabbath  because  the  Jews  of  his  day 
were  disposed  to  overwork  themselves  and  their 
slaves.  And  when  he  accompanied  this  and  his 
other  institutions  with  a  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  it 
was  only  as  their  political  head,  and  for  the  sake  of 
giving  them  more  effect.  The  meaning  was  nothing 
more  than  this,  —  "  Be  it  enacted."  It  was  not  that 
God  spoke  it  in  so  many  words  to  him.  Moses  pro- 
fessed to  receive  directly  from  God,  what  he  really 
received,  like  other  wise  men,  indirectly. 

Gentlemen  seem  to  be  in  favor  of  lumping  all  the 
books  of  Scripture  together,  as  if  they  all  taught  the 
same  thing.  But  it  is  not  so.  The  single  book  of 
Isaiah,  for  instance,  which  purports  to  have  been 
written  by  one  person,  was  unquestionably  composed 
by  several  writers.  In  the  first  chapter  of  it  some 
things  are  said  of  the  Sabbath,  as  if  it  were  not  alto- 
gether very  agreeable  to  the  Lord.  But  from  the 
fortieth  chapter  onward,  it  was  obviously  written  by 
some  one  who  honored  the  Sabbath. 

Mr.  P.  made  a  variety  of  statements,  which  showed, 


SENTIMENTS    OFFERED.  19 

as  he  said,  that  in  fixing  upon  and  observing  the  first 
day  of  the  week  as  Sunday,  the  early  Christians  did  it 
arbitrarily,  and  as  a  civil  institution  merely  —  an  in- 
stitution called  for  by  the  general  wants  of  society, 
and  therefore,  on  the  ground  of  a  sound  expediency, 
entitled  to  general  observance.  In  this  view  of  it,  he 
said,  I  would  still  cling  to  the  Christian  Sunday,  if 
it  were  only  for  the  oxen  and  the  horses.  I  would 
be  the  last  to  give  it  up.  At  the  same  time,  I  would 
have  it  observed  according  to  liberal  and  enlightened 
views.  There  are  some  here  who  would  have  no 
book  but  a  religious  one  read  on  the  Sabbath  —  who 
would  allow  of  no  conversation  but  religious,  &c. ; 
but  such  an  observance  is  alien  to  the  spirit  of  Chris- 
tianity. It  savors,  I  will  not  say  of  Judaism,  but  it 
does  savor  of  Pharisaic  superstition.  I  would  have  it 
a  day  for  religious  instruction  and  worship,  to  be  sure, 
and  also  a  day  for  social  visits,  and  for  the  leisure  and 
refreshing  walk  in  the  fields.* 

*  This  same  Mr.  Parker  uttered  the  following  sentiments  in 
tlie  Union  Convention,  at  Groton,  on  the  12th  of  August  last. 
The  extracts  are  taken  from  a  report  of  his  speech,  made  by 
Mrs.  M.  W.  Chapman,  and  published  in  the  Church  Reformer, 
No.  3.  The  subject  before  the  Convention  w^as  sectarianism. 
Mr.  Parker  said,  Peter,  "  misunderstanding  the  Old  Testament, 
with  right  Jewish  narrowness,  (!)  declares,  ^  there  is  no  other  name ' 
(meaning  Christ's,)  '  given  under  heaven,  whereby  men  can  be 
saved.'  *  *  *  There  was  sectarianism  in  the  New  Testament; 
sectarianism  among  the  ver-g  apostles  whom  my  friends  appeal  to 
as  infallible.  *  *  *  It  yet  remains  for  us  to  apply  good  sense  to 
religion ;  when  this  is  done,  it  will  be  of  very  little  importance, 
what  a  man  thinks  of  the  Old  Testament  or  the  New  Testament, 
so  long  as  he  loves  man  as  himself,  and  God  above  all.  Then 
the  difference  between  the  creeds  of  Hopkins  and  Edwards,  the 


30  SENTIMENTS   OFFERED. 

W.  L.  Garrison.  But  we  are  pointed  to  France, 
Yes,  look  at  France*  This  is  capital  stock  for  the 
priesthood !  But  what  made  the  infidelity  of  France  ? 
The  false  and  spurious  Christianity  they  had.  *  *  * 
And  what  is  France  now  ?  The  Sabbath  is  as  much 
unknown  there  now  as  ever.  It  is  a  day  of  universal 
indulgence  and  profanation.  They  have  no  more  of 
a  Sabbath  really  now  than  in  the  days  of  the  revolu- 
tion. But  do  we  hear  any  lamentations  about  the 
horrible  state  of  France  now?  And  what  is  the 
reason  ?  They've  got  the  priesthood  again,  and  the 
ehui'ch  again,  and  they  will  have  their  Jacobinism 
again.  That  Jacobinism  was  the  legitimate  fruit  of 
their  false  Christianity ;  and  as  long  as  we  have  the 
priesthood  and  the  church  imposed  on  us  here,  it 
will,  in  the  end,  be  just  so  here.  We  shall  be  obliged 
to  have  a  Sabbath  once  a  week,  "  to  make  us  feel 
so  peculiarly  pious."  The  community  will  "keep 
going  on  six  days  of  the  week,  cheating  their  neigh- 
bors, (honestly,  in  trade,  to  be  sure,)  and  then  have 
their  Sabbath  to  get  them  right  again."  But  our 
doctrine  is,  that  men  are  to  be  holy  every  where,  and 
at  all  times ;  that  Holiness  to  the  Lord  is  to  be  writ- 
ten on  every  thing;  and  that  men  need  not  always 
be  in  bondage  to  sin,  and  to  days  and  seasons,  and 
forms  and  ceremonies.  No,  thank  the  Lord,  it  is  not 
death,  but  Christ  who  is  the  Savior  of  men,  &c. — And, 

dogmas  about  the  miracles,  the  ascension,  the  resurrection  even, 
and  the  inspiration  of  the  apostles,  will  be  subjects  of  speculation 
for  the  curious,  but  which  have  as  little  to  do  with  our  religion,  as 
a  farthing  candle  has  with  the  shining  of  the  noon-day  sun."  — 
Now,  what  is  all  this  but  deism,  under  the  name  and  in  the 
phraseology  of  Christiaoity  1 


SENTIMENTS   OFFERED.  21 

(in  another  connection,)  — "  Whoever  has  Christ  within 
him  won't  need  a  particular  day  to  get  religion  in." 

Again  —  Christ  came  to  deliver  us  from  the  bur- 
den of  rites,  and  forms,  and  holy  days  ;  but  if  he  has 
only  changed  the  day  of  the  Sabbath  from  the  seventh 
to  the  first,  he  has  not  relieved  us  at  all.  The  bur- 
den remains  just  as  before. 

Again  —  The  standard  of  morality  under  the  gos- 
pel dispensation  is  infinitely  higher  than  it  was  under 
the  old. 

Again,  —  commenting  on  Gen.  ii,  2,  3,  —  It  is  as- 
sumed here  that  God  was  just  six  days  in  making 
the  world,  which  is  not  quite  so  obvious.  Geology, 
I  believe,  has  pretty  thoroughly  proved  that  it  could 
not  be  so.  Besides,  according  to  the  Bible  itself,,  it 
does  not  appear  that  the  sun  was  made  until  the 
fourth  day.  Of  course,  there  could  not  have  been 
regular  days  before  that.  And  moreover,  in  Gen.  ii.  4, 
the  term  "day"  includes  the  whole  six  previously 
named.  There  cannot  be  a  doubt,  then,  that  it  de- 
notes here,  as  it  does  in  other  parts  of  the  Bible,  a 
long  and  indefinite  period. 

Again,  commenting  on  Lev.  xix.  30,  "Ye  shall 
keep  my  Sabbaths,  and  reverence  my  sanctuary," 
he  said.  Where  is  the  sanctuary  they  were  com- 
manded to  reverence?  It  was  destroyed  with 
Jerusalem.  And  since  then,  God  is  to  be  wor- 
shipped in  Spirit  For  myself,  I  have  no  rev- 
erence for  wood  and  mortar.  The  only  sanctuary  1 
need  is  Christ.  Christ  was  in  constant  trouble 
with  the  scribes  and  the  Pharisees  because  he  was 
a  Sabbath-breaker.  And  it  is  just  so  in  these  days 
with  us.    The  Jewish  priests  are  continually  crying 


22  SENTIMENTS    OFFERED. 

out  against  us  as  Sabbath-breakers,  &c.  —  The  Sab- 
bath is  not  necessary  for  man  or  beast.  Who 
says  it  is,  but  the  over  worker  of  himself  and  beast  ? 
But  men  have  no  right  or  any  need  now^  to  overwork 
themselves  or  their  beasts.  In  the  Christian  dispen- 
sation, we  are  to  be  redeemed  from  the  curse,  "in  the 
sweat  of  thy  brow,"  &c.  Christ  gives  us  all  our  time ; 
and  if  we  make  proper  use  of  it,  we  shan't  need  one 
day  in  seven  to  rest.  We  can  live  without  so  much 
labor.  Machinery  is  to  do  it  for  us.  The  spiritual  is 
to  have  command  of  the  material  world,  and  man  is 
to  be  fully  redeemed.  —  1  did  not  say  that  the  clergy 
preach  directly,  that  if  men  will  keep  the  Sabbath, 
they  may  do  as  they  please  on  other  days.  No, 
they,  for  the  most  pait,  preach  truth  in  the  ab- 
stract, but  practically  they  fellowship  unrighteous- 
ness. Whatever  they  may  preach,  they  are,  in  fact, 
the  deadliest  enemies  of  holiness,  as  a  body,  in  the  land, 

A.  Bronson  Alcott.  I  do  not  feel  called  upon  to 
worship  as  other  people  do.  I  go  into  our  churches, 
but  I  don't  find  there  what  I  want  —  must  I  continue 
to  go  ?  If  I  incline  to  worship  one  day  or  two  days 
of  the  week,  or  all  days,  what  is  that  to  others,  so 
long  as  I  am  sincere  ?  If  I  dance  when  I  worship,  as 
one  religious  sect  does,  if  I  do  it  sincerely,  it  is  true 
worship.  If  I  labor,  but  not  for  lucre,  that  is  worship. 
Labor  is  a  ritual.    Labor  is  divine. 

I  have  an  objection  to  the  Sabbath  as  now  con- 
ducted. What  are  the  facts  ?  We  leave  our  homes, 
those  sacred  institutions,  and  go  with  our  families  to 
the  church.  And  this  takes  up  nearly  all  the  time, 
so  that  our  families  are  left  without  instruction  at 
home.    But  I  believe  that  the  family  is  the  church, 


SENTIMENTS    OFFERED.  23 

that  the  parent  is  the  priest,  and  that  the  children 
are  the  audience.  And  until  the  church  and  state 
are  organized  around  the  family,  there  can  be  no  per- 
manent improvement  of  society.  Instead  of  going 
to  the  churches  on  the  Sabbath,  I  would  have  our 
families  remain  at  home,  and  have  the  parents  spend 
their  time  in  teaching  their  own  children.  And  I 
would  have  the  parent  a  prophet  —  teaching  by  in- 
spiration. Wheresoever  there  is  a  pure  and  holy 
soul,  there  is,  or  may  be,  inspiration.  It  is  the  con- 
science that  is  a  "Thus  saith  the  Lord."  And  when 
a  man  disobeys  this  ever-present  Deity  within  him, 
he  is  rebuked.  If  pure  and  holy,  we  are  lawgivers. 
A  pure  life  recorded  is  sacred  scripture.  An  impure 
life  recorded  is  profane  scripture.  If  a  person  should 
rise  here  and  say,  I  am  as  much  inspired  as  Jesus 
was,  almost  all  would  say.  What  arrogance  !  what  pro- 
fane and  blasphemous  words  he  utters !  He  claims 
to  be  equal  to  Jesus  Christ.  But  for  a  man  to  be  a 
Christian,  is  to  be  in  degree  and  kind  what  Jesus  was. 
It  is  to  believe  that  he  is  inspired  as  Jesus  was,  and 
holy  as  Jesus  was,  and  divine  as  Jesus  was.  It  is 
not  in  printed  documents,  (referring  to  the  Bible,) 
old,  ghastly,  cadaverous,  that  put  us  all  to  sleep,  that 
inspiration  dwells.  Do  you  say  that  that  is  preach- 
ing, because  the  preacher  opens  a  certain  book  and 
takes  a  text  ?  No,  we  should  all  be  priests  as  Jesus 
was.  We  should  be  inspired  as  he  was.  The  the- 
ological school  is  not  there,  or  there.  The  medical 
school  is  not  there,  or  there.  But  the  instructor  is 
here.  It  is  within  our  own  breast.  Let  us,  then, 
revere  our  own  conscience,  and  not  commit  the  un- 
pardonable sin  of  not  revering  the  Deity  within  us. 


24 


SENTIMENTS   OFFERED. 


N.  H.  Whiting.  As  I  said  before,  I  shall  go  for 
argument,  on  this  question,  wherever  I  please.  If 
others  are  disposed  to  dig  up  the  musty  records  of 
former  times,  (referring  to  the  arguments  drawn  by 
myself  and  others  from  the  Bible,)  they  can  do  so ; 
I  shall  not  Or  if  any  one  is  disposed  to  waste  his 
life  in  deciphering  Egyptian  hieroglyphics  in  rela- 
tion to  it,  he  can ;  I  shall  not.  I  go  against  the  Sab- 
bath as  false  in  philosophy,  as  false  in  physiology 
and  false  in  morals  and  religion.  We  are  told,  that 
God  rested  on  the  seventh  day,  and  therefore  we  are 
to  rest.  I  don't  find  any  such  command.  It  seems  to 
be  supposed  by  some  that  a  truth  between  the  lids 
of  the  Bible  has  more  authority  than  if  it  were  found 
any  where  else.  But  if  a  child  gives  me  truth,  I  re- 
ceive it  as  of  equal  authority.  It  makes  no  difference 
with  me  where  I  find  it.  I  regard  every  truth  as  a 
revelation  from  God,  come  from  what  source  it  may. 
If  the  devil  should  say  to  me  that  two  and  two  are 
four,  I  should  receive  it  as  truth.  And  so  with  any 
other  truth.  I  care  not  where  I  find  it.  I  don't  see 
the  command  for  a  Sabbath  any  where.  It  isn't  pal- 
pable to  my  mind  in  nature.  Men  need  rest,  it  is 
true,  but  they  need  it  when  they  are  tired,  not  one 
day  in  seven.  The  fact  that  man  is  overworked  in 
the  present  state  of  society,  is  no  argument,  because 
society  is  now  all  wrong.  What  is  the  Christianity 
of  the  present  day  ?  It  is  a  speculating  Christianity. 
It  is  a  trading  Christianity  —  a  cheating  Christianity. 
It  compels  the  laborer  to  toil  on  to  support  the  idler, 
who  feeds  like  a  vampire  on  him.  Such  a  Chris- 
tianity, I  admit,  needs  a  Sabbath.  Suppose  you 
should  convert  the  world  to  the  Christianity  of  the 


SENTIMENTS    OFFERED  25 

present  day,  —  what  good  would  it  do  ?  You  would 
have  the  same  bloated  wealth,  and  the  same  starving, 
wretched  poverty,  by  its  side,  that  you  have  now. 
(Some  one,  "  True ! ")  The  first  step  you  have  got  to 
take,  if  you  mean  to  effect  any  real  and  permanent 
reform,  is  to  strike  at  the  foundations  of  society  as  at 
present  existing.  Society,  as  now  existing,  is  but  one 
grand  system  of  slavery,  of  which  that  at  the  south  is 
only  a  more  palpable  form.  (Mr.  Garrison,  "True! 
true  I ")  It  has  been  said  that  the  opposers  of  the 
Sabbath  are  generally  among  the  most  dishonest, 
vicious,  and  wicked  of  the  community.  I  venture  the 
asvsertion,  that  when  this  great  question  of  the  Sab- 
bath, which  is  the  centre  and  cement  of  society,  as  it 
is,  comes  to  be  fairly  agitated,  you  will  find  that  the 
robber  and  the  slaveholder,  &c.,  will  hold  on  to  it  to 
the  last,  (Mr.  Garrison,  "  Hear !  hear !  hear  I ")  and  be 
the  loudest  in  its  defence.  The  Sabbath,  in  a  cor- 
rect state  of  society,  is  not  needed  by  man,  either 
morally,  religiously,  as  a  day  of  rest  from  overtoil, 
or  for  any  good  purpose  whatever,  though  it  is  ne- 
cessary, I  admit,  for  the  system  of  society  under 
which  men  are  crushed,  killed,  and  murdered.  The 
morality  of  the  heathen  world  is  in  many  cases 
above  that  of  the  Christian  world.  I  should  say  that 
Christian  society,  as  at  present  constituted,  is  one 
great  system  of  fraud,  corruption,  and  murder ;  and 
the  Sabbath  is  one  part  of  this  system,  and  absolutely 
necessary  to  its  continuance  and  support. 
3 


26  REMARKS. 


REMARKS. 


In  the  foregoing  sketch  the  reader  has  a  fan-  illus- 
tration of  the  belief  and  spirit  of  those  who  were 
chiefly  instrumental  in  calling  and  directing  the  Con- 
vention, and  who  were  among  the  foremost  in  assail- 
ing the  Sabbath,  and  its  kindred  institutions,  the 
church  and  the  ministry.  Several  of  the  public  prints 
have  spoken  of  the  Convention  as  designed  to  over- 
throw those  institutions,  and  leave  us  no  Sabbath,  no 
church,  and  no  ministry.  Mr.  Garrison  (Liberator,  Dec. 
18,  1840)  complains  of  this,  and  says  of  the  articles 
generally,  "They  ai*e  replete  with  defamation,  with 
ridicule,  with  consternation,  with  falsehood,  with  rib- 
aldry. The  object  of  the  late  Convention  was  not  to 
oppose  the  church,  the  ministry,  or  the  Sabbath,  as 
based  upon  the  gospel  of  Christ ;  but  EXACTLY  THE 
REVERSE."  And  does  Mr.  G.  suppose  that  an  in- 
telligent community  are  to  be  deceived  by  such  pre- 
tences ?  The  object  of  the  Convention  was  to  advo- 
cate these  institutions,  "as  based  upon  the  gospel  of 
Christ."  Indeed  !  And  what  was  the  Sabbath  so 
advocated  ?  Why,  that  all  days  were  alike,  and  that 
"whoever  (see  p.  21)  has  Christ  within  him,  won't 
need  a  particular  day  to  get  religion  in;"  i. e.  it  was 
a  Sabbath  which  left  no  Sabbath,  as  distinct  from  or- 
dinary days.  And  what  was  the  ministry,  so  devoutly 
advocated  ?  Why,  that  "  there  is  a  royal  priesthood, 
and  it  is  all  those  who  believe."  In  other  terms,  there 
is  no  ministry,  as  such.  Christians  are  all  priests; 
and  besides  this,  there  is  no  priesthood  —  no  ministry 
at  all.    And  yet  the  object  of  the  Convention  was  to 


REMARKS.  27 

advocate  the  ministry,  &c.,  "as  based  upon  the  gos- 
pel of  Christ"  !  Was  ever  pretence  more  disingenu- 
ous or  dishonest  ?  Abner  Kneeland's  disclaimer  of 
atheism  alone  can  match  it.  Mr.  Kneeland  is  an 
atheist,  said  the  people.  Not  at  all,  said  Mr.  Knee- 
land —  nothing  can  be  farther  from  the  truth.  I  be- 
lieve in  the  being  of  God,  as  devoutly  as  the  devoutest 
of  you  —  only,  you  will  understand,  my  God  is  all  na- 
ture !  And  so,  in  the  pretended  belief  of  a  pantheistic 
god,  he  covered  up  his  belief  in  no  god,  and  sought  to 
do  aw^ay  belief  in  the  true  one.  The  trick  was  worthy 
of  the  occasion  and  the  man,  and  is  equalled  only  by 
that,  which,  under  the  pretence  of  advocating  the 
Sabbath,  the  ministry,  and  the  church,  really  seeks 
(vain  work !)  to  abolish  them. 

Again  —  some  of  the  public  prints  have  spoken  of 
the  Convention  as  infidel  in  its  character  and  tenden- 
cies, if  not  in  its  designs.  Mr.  Colver,  indeed,  in 
writing  to  some  friend  in  England,  has  termed  it  "  an 
infidel  Convention."  Others  have  spoken  of  it  in  the 
same  way.  All  such  representations  Mr.  Garrison 
pronounces  unqualifiedly  false.  Of  the  statement  of 
Mr.  Colver,  he  says,  (Lib.,  Jan.  29,  1841,)  "Every 
word,  every  syllable,  in  this  sentence,  is  untrue.  No 
such  Convention  has  been  held  ; "  and  subsequently, 
"  JVot  an  infidel  spoke  in  the  meeting.''^  More  than  this, 
he  says,  (Lib.,  Dec.  18,  1840,)  "  that  all  who  spoke  in 
opposition  to  the  popujar  views  of  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  insisted  upon  the  duty  of  all  men  to  perfect 
themselves  in  righteousness,  to  consecrate  their  time, 
talents,  and  means,  to  the  service  of  the  living  God, 
and  to  be  holy  and  without  blemish.  And  yet  they  are 
denounced  as  infidels." 


28  REMARKS. 

These  are  importaDt  statements.  In  connection 
with  the  proceedings  of  the  Convention,  they  enable 
us  to  learn,  what  Mr.  Garrison  and  those  who  agree 
with  him,  have  never  yet  dared  to  teh  the  pubhc,  viz. 
what  they  mean  by  infidelity ;  and,  therefore,  what  they 
mean  when  they  disclaim  it,  and  cry,  Persecution !  if 
charged  with  it.  Among  all  the  disclaimers  on  this 
subject,  when  or  where  have  they  told  the  public  what 
they  mean  by  infidelity?  The  Convention  was  not 
infidel,  they  say.  Yet  it  deliberately  rejected  the  Bible 
as  its  only  authoritative  rule  of  faith  and  duty.  It  thus 
declared  in  terms,  that  it  did  not  meet  as  an  assembly 
of  Christians,  with  the  Bible  for  their  rule,  but  as  an 
assembly  of  mer?,  untrammelled  by  such  rule,  ^nd 
for  this  William  Lloyd  Garrison  DotecL  True,  he  said 
he  took  his  stand  upon  the  Bible,  and  that  he  held  no 
argument  touching  the  Sabbath,  &c.,  with  those  who 
denied  the  Bible.  Yet,  when  called  upon,  by  Mr. 
Himes's  resolution,  to  say  in  what  sense  he  stood  upon 
it,  and  what  he  meant  by  those  who  denied  it,  he  voted 
the  Bible  down,  as  the  only  authoritative  rule  of  faith 
and  duty,  and  so  declared,  that  such  as  Whiting,  Al- 
cott,  Parker,  &c.,  were  not,  in  his  view,  deniers  of  it. 
And  is  it  so,  that  a  man,  or  body  of  men,  may  reject 
the  Bible,  as  above,  and  yet  not  be  infidel  ?  Then  is 
not  deism  infidelity ;  then  is  there  no  such  thing  as 
an  infidel  Convention,  short  of  a  convention  of  blank 
atheists.  The  truth  is,  reject  ihe  Bible  as  above,  and, 
aware  of  it  or  not,  you  have  passed  the  dividing  line 
between  the  Christian  and  the  infidel ;  as  to  any  final 
and  authoritative  rule  of  faith,  you  are  an  infidel. 
How  can  it  be  otherwise  ?  Where  else  can  you  draw 
the  dividing  line  ?    The  deist,  the  pantheist,  Abner 


REMARKS.  29 

Kneeland  even,  consult  the  Bible,  and,  where  its  teach- 
ings concur  with  their  "  own  convictions,"  receive 
them  as  true,  just  as  do  Whiting  and  Alcott,  and  others 
of  that  class.  How  is  it,  that  the  one  are  infidel,  and 
the  other  not  ?  Yet  the  Convention,  we  are  told,  was 
not  infidel,  nor  did  an  infidel  address  it !  What  ! 
did  not  men  speak  there,  who  sneered  at  the  Scrip- 
tures, as  "  musty  records ; "  who  placed  them  on  a  level 
with  the  scriptures  of  the  pagans ;  who  held  them  in- 
ferior in  authority  to  our  "  own  convictions ; "  who 
esteemed  them  "  a  contradiction  ; "  and  who  even 
gloried  in  receiving  truth  from  the  lips  of  a  child,  or 
the  devil,  with  as  great  deference  as  from  them  ? 
Yet,  Mr.  Garrison  being  judge,  "?iof  an  infidel  spoke 
in  the  meeting. ^^  The  Christian  public  will,  hereafter, 
know  how  to  estimate  these  disclaimers  of  infidelity. 
And  so  of  the  plea,  that  those  who  spoke  against 
the  popular  views,  urged  the  duty  of  being  "holy  and 
without  blemish."  True,  they  did,  and  yet  in  the  same 
breath,  set  the  Bible  unceremoniously  aside,  and  ex- 
alted each  man's  "  own  convictions  "  above  it,  as  the 
standard  of  holiness !  But  what  is  such  holiness  ? 
And  what  is  such  religion  ?  It  may  assume  the  name 
of  Christianity.  It  may  clothe  itself  with  some  of  itg 
features.  Its  disciples  may  think  they  are  doing  God 
service  in  its  promulgation.  But  all  this  does  not 
change  its  nature.  Call  it  what  you  will,  and  be  its 
form  and  the  motives  of  its  disciples  what  they  may, 
the  nature  of  the  thing  remains  the  same.  What  is 
that  nature  ?  What  is  that  thing,  which  discards  the 
Bible  as  our  rule  of  duty  and  the  standard  of  holiness; 
which  substitutes  obedience  to  our  "  own  convictions" 
in  the  place  of  Christ,  as  the  ground  of  acceptance 
3  * 


dU  RllMARKS. 

with  God;  and  which,  having  thus  eaten  out  the' 
vitals  of  Christianity,  sweeps  away,  at  a  blow,  those 
institutions  and  ordinances  that  give  it  visibility  and 
permanency  ?  That  things  which  swept  j^way  the  vi- 
tals and  the  visibility  of  Christianity  in  other  days,  was 
infideliiy.  What  is  that  thing,  which  now  seeks,  in 
other  forms,  if  you  will,  to  do  the  same  ?  It  calls 
itself  Christianity  —  a  higher  and  purer  form  of  it. 
Such,  in  the  belief  of  some  of  its  advocates,  it  doubt- 
less is.  But  is  it  so  in  fact  ?  Or  is  it  the  old  thing, 
under  a  new  name?  Name  it  what  you  will,  yet 
wherein  does  the  thing  itself,  in  its  best  form,  differ 
from  pure  deisni?  In  what  one  fundamental  ele- 
ment are  they  unlike  ?  If  the  one  set?  aside  the  Biblcy 
and  robs  Christianity  of  her  distinguishing  doctrines, 
and  so  saps  her  foundations,  so  does  the  other.  If  the- 
one  sweeps  away  all  that  is  peculiar  in  her  institutions 
and  ordinances,  and  so  sweeps  away  her  visibility,  so 
does  the  other.  Both  equally  rob  Christianity  of  her 
distinctive  doctrines  and  her  distinctive  institutions. 
Both  leave  her  nothing  of  doctrine  or  of  institution,  ta 
distinguish  her  from  pure  deism,  or,  indeed,  from  Pan- 
theistic and  Transcendental  Atheism,  itself.  Both,  in 
fundamental  elements,  ARE  THE  SAME;  AND 
LET  HIM  THAT  DENIES  IT  DRAW  THE 
LINE  OF  DISTINCTION,  IF  HE  CAN. 

Indeed,  while  Mr.  Garrison,  (Lib.,  Jan.  29,  1841,) 
says,  "  The  result  of  the  Convention  led  me  to  give 
thanks  to  God,  and  greatly  to  rejoice  in  spirit,  because 
I  believed  that  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus  was  signally 
promoted  by  it,"  Abner  Kneeland's  infidel  Investiga- 
tor, of  this  city,  (Dec.  2,  1840,)  also  exclaims,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  same,  « The  cry  is  up  —  the  race  is  well 


REMARK?.  31 

begun  —  men  begin  to  see  the  fallacy  of  priestcraft, 
the  absurdity  of  doctrinal  preaching,  temple  worship, 
and  the  reign  of  good  sense  is  at  hand.  A  Convention, 
&c.,  has  just  closed  its  sessions  in  this  city.  And  the 
result  is  most  encouraging  to  the  friends  of  human  rights. 
It  is  a  monument  of  the  vincibility  of  prejudice,  and 
the  triumph  of  plain  truthP  Thus,  from  some  cause, 
the  self-styled  "friends  of  universal  reform,"  and 
avowed  infidels,  are  animated  by  kindred  emotions  in 
view  of  the  result.  Both  exult  in  it,  as  the  triumph 
of  truth !  Whence  this  oneness  of  sympathy  and  feel- 
ing? Has  Infidelity  mistaken  herself,  that  she  and 
"  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus  "  go  thus  lovingly  together  ? 
Or  does  she  see,  and  truly,  too,  in  such  truth,  her 
real  self —  the  old  thing,  under  a  new  name  ? 

And  will  it  now  be  said  that  this  is  judging  the  re- 
formers too  harshly ;  that  they  indeed  resent  the  idea 
of  being  infidel  in  their  principles ;  that  they  place  an 
exalted  estimate  on  the  character  and  teachings  of 
Christ,  and  are  in  fact  zealous  for  Christianity  itself  ? 
So  were  many  of  the  deists  and  infidels  of  other  days. 
Rousseau  said,  "If  the  life  and  death  of  Socrates  are 
those  of  a  philosopher,  the  life  and  death  of  Jesus 
Christ  are  those  of  a  God."  Gibbon  does  not  "  deny 
the  truth  of  Christianity."  Nay,  he  speaks  of  it  as 
"  the  divine  revelation,"  and  avers  that  its  early  suc- 
cess was  "  owing  to  the  convincing  evidence  of  the 
doctrine  itself,  and  to  the  ruling  providence  of  its  great 
author."  *  Shaftesbury  used  to  declare  himself  "  a 
very  orthodox  believer,"  insisting  "  that  he  faithfully 
embraced  the  holy  mysteries  of  our  religion,  notwith- 

*  Priestley^s  Church  History;  vol.  vi.  p.  366,  and  Gibbon's 
History,  vol.  i.  p.  536. 


32  REMARKS. 

Standing  their  amazing  depth ;"  and  he  actually  finds 
fault  with  those  who  "  represent  not  only  the  institu- 
tion of  preaching,  but  the  gospel  itself,  and  our  holy 
religion,  to  be  a.  fraud."  *  Collins  (Letter  to  Dr. 
Rogers,  p.  112)  represents  the  cause  in  which  he  is 
engaged  as  "the  cause  of  vktue,  learning,  truth,  God, 
religion,  and  Christianity,^^  Bolingbroke  says, "  Gen- 
uine Christianity  is  contained  in  the  gospel.  It  is  the 
word  of  God.  It  requires,  therefore,  our  veneration 
and  strict  conformity  to  it."  He  speaks  even  of  his 
"zcaZ  for  Christianity,^'']  Woolston  declai'es  "that 
he  writes,  not  for  the  semce  of  infidelity,  which  has 
no  place  in  his  heart,  but  for  the  honor  of  the  holy 
Jesus,  and  in  defence  of  Christianity,^'*  He  concludes 
several  of  his  discourses  by  declaring,  that  his  "  de- 
sign is,  the  advancement  of  the  truth,  and  of  the  Mes- 
siahship  of  the  holy  Jesus,  to  whom  be  glory  forever, 
Amen."|  And  Chubb,  one  of  the  most  prominent  of 
the  deistical  writers  of  his  time,  actually  entitles  one 
of  his  tracts,  "  The  true  Gospel  of  Christ  asserted,^^ 
It  is  no  new  thing,  then,  for  deism  to  imagine  itself, 
or  to  pretend  to  be,  Christianity  ;  and  so  doing,  to  re- 
sent the  charge  of  infidelity,  and  claim  for  itself  the 
character  and  the  honor  of  being  but  a  purer  and 
better  form  of  Christianity,  or,  rather,  original  Chris- 
tianity herself  Time  will  show  whether  such  be  the 
fact  with  certain  "  friends  of  universal  reform,"  in 
these  days.  Thus  far,  it  would  seem  to  be  so. 
Further  developments  will,  doubtless,  decide  the 
question. 

*  Leland's  Deistical  Writers,  vol.  i.  pp.  54- — 62, 
t  Works,  vol.  iv.  p.  631,  and  vol.  i.  p,  182. 
t  Leland,  vol.  i.  pp.  114,  115. 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 
or  to  the 
NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
Bldg.400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

•  2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 
(510)642-6753 

•  1  -year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing 
books  to  NRLF 

•  Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4 
days  prior  to  due  date. 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

SEP  0  5  2000 


12,000(11/95) 


I 


